NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Medical Marajuana be legal? Should Marjuana be legal? Or should we arrest the Marajuana Users?

Yes, sure, nah.

yes, yes, hell no.

Yes.
Most likely.
Only if they are doing something dangerous to others.

I don't know about this Marajuana stuff...I've never heard about it. On the other hand Marijuana is something I've heard about.

1) Only as legal as medical Heroin is (They use it in medicine, in controled situations, in hopsitals only)
2) no
3) yes

1) Only as legal as medical Heroin is (They use it in medicine, in controled situations, in hopsitals only)
2) no
3) yes

Out of curiosity, why?

The harmful effects of heroin are *much* greater than those of marijuana. In fact, the harmful effects of marijuana are no worse than alcohol or tobacco - both of which are more addictive, so why should it be lumped in with heroin, which is *highly* addictive and harmful when used outside of medicine.

1) Only as legal as medical Heroin is (They use it in medicine, in controled situations, in hopsitals only)
2) no
3) yes

Why?

You may like to know that the state of Alaska's supreme court passed a ruling in September 2004, that says that an adult in Alaska may posess up to 4 ounces of marijuana for personal use, but it may not be sold or consumed by minors. So in Alaska you can grow your own up to 4 ounces. ;)

I meant medical marijuana used with the same rules as govern the use of medical heroine. Namely as a last resort.
Medical Heroin is what they give you to kill the pain when Morpheme won't work. It's a last resort pain killer, and they regulate it very strictly.

I am opposed to all drugs, including both Tobacco and Alcohol, so my extreme opposition to marijuana shouldn't be much of a surprise should it?

I am opposed to all drugs, including both Tobacco and Alcohol, so my extreme opposition to marijuana shouldn't be much of a surprise should it?

As long as your opposed to all drugs I can see where your coming from.

I meant medical marijuana used with the same rules as govern the use of medical heroine. Namely as a last resort.
Medical Heroin is what they give you to kill the pain when Morpheme won't work. It's a last resort pain killer, and they regulate it very strictly.

I am opposed to all drugs, including both Tobacco and Alcohol, so my extreme opposition to marijuana shouldn't be much of a surprise should it?

What about caffeine?

And since medicinal marijuana, for the purposes it is used for, is *less harmful* than other drugs prescribed for the same thing which are generally *less effective*, wouldn't saving it as a last resort be a bad thing?

I meant medical marijuana used with the same rules as govern the use of medical heroine. Namely as a last resort.
Medical Heroin is what they give you to kill the pain when Morpheme won't work. It's a last resort pain killer, and they regulate it very strictly.

I am opposed to all drugs, including both Tobacco and Alcohol, so my extreme opposition to marijuana shouldn't be much of a surprise should it?

If you are only "opposed" to tobacco and alcohol and yet "extremely opposed" to marijuana, perhaps you would benefit from a little research into addictive, medicinal, and longeterm effects of each. The vast majority of arrests in the United States are related to drug offenses, and the majority of those are marijauna related, representing a disproportionately large economic burden and stress the on judicial system.

I still haven't heard an appropriate justification as to why alcohol is legal and marijunana is not... if you can offer one I'd be more than happy to hear.

Herbal remedies, baby.

-the sailor-

*go forth and spread knowledge*

What about caffeine?

And since medicinal marijuana, for the purposes it is used for, is *less harmful* than other drugs prescribed for the same thing which are generally *less effective*, wouldn't saving it as a last resort be a bad thing?

That depends, when most people say medical marijuana they mean letting someone smoke it in public, where I have to be (Going to school or work for instance.) then I say last resort only. If they mean in a private home, alone or in the presence of trained medical personell and/or other medical users, but not in the presence of minors or unconsenting adults, then sure.

But still, any use but that, I strongly disagree with. And easily group it with my smoking idea. "All smokers should be given the option to quit (With overnment help of course) or be shot dead on the spot".
Simmilar plans involving alcohol. And Caffine makes no difference to taste of things like coffee or pop that it's in, so why is it there? Get rid of it.

See my point? I'm strongly opposed to it all. Me admitting a medical use for it is a big thing, because marijuana I particularly hate the most.

What causes your hate of all these things? And more importantly, don't you think are forcing your views on other people? As long as they drink/smoke in a way/place that doesn't affect you at all, and your not forced to watch or be exposed to it?

That depends, when most people say medical marijuana they mean letting someone smoke it in public, where I have to be (Going to school or work for instance.) then I say last resort only. If they mean in a private home, alone or in the presence of trained medical personell and/or other medical users, but not in the presence of minors or unconsenting adults, then sure.

Actually, medicinal marijuana can come in pill form - and thus most likely wouldn't be smoked at all. Of course, even if we were talking about out in public (which I have never heard *ANYONE* advocate), it would not be allowed anywhere that tobacco smoke is not.

See my point? I'm strongly opposed to it all. Me admitting a medical use for it is a big thing, because marijuana I particularly hate the most.

Why? Out of the four drugs mentioned in this post, marijuana is arguably less harmful than two of them. Only caffeine is less harmful - although it has quite a few bad side effects itself. Why do you *particularly hate* marijuana?

I thing you should be able to do what you want, what would happen if we let people experiment with less dangerous recreation drugs?

That depends, when most people say medical marijuana they mean letting someone smoke it in public, where I have to be (Going to school or work for instance.) then I say last resort only. If they mean in a private home, alone or in the presence of trained medical personell and/or other medical users, but not in the presence of minors or unconsenting adults, then sure.
I would have thought that when most people talk about medical marijuana use they mean very seriously ill people being given marijuana in hospital or at home. I highly doubt that people who are terminally ill and in a huge amount of pain would have the energy to be out and about smoking joints in public. In fact, I think that when marijuana use for medicinal purposes is legally permitted, it's given in the form of a pill or liquid or similar, not smoked.


As for my opinions, yes medicinal use should definitely be legalised, personal use should be made legal, but with similar restrictions to those that apply to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, and no marijuana users shouldn't be arrested.

Actually, medicinal marijuana can come in pill form - and thus most likely wouldn't be smoked at all. Of course, even if we were talking about out in public (which I have never heard *ANYONE* advocate), it would not be allowed anywhere that tobacco smoke is not.



Why? Out of the four drugs mentioned in this post, marijuana is arguably less harmful than two of them. Only caffeine is less harmful - although it has quite a few bad side effects itself. Why do you *particularly hate* marijuana?

I grew up in a family full of smokers with alcoholics on both sides. That experiance soured me.
As for a pill, well if it's a pill, take it any where you need.

thats sad that family abused drugs and alcohol

I say we legalize it all! My pholosphy is that as long as it doesnt hurt others you can do what you want.... exept when it comes to war then its all cool.

You may like to know that the state of Alaska's supreme court passed a ruling in September 2004, that says that an adult in Alaska may posess up to 4 ounces of marijuana for personal use, but it may not be sold or consumed by minors. So in Alaska you can grow your own up to 4 ounces. ;)
:eek: moving... :D
in answer to the question, YES, YES, NEVER
Marijuana should be legal, under all cirucmstances and people should never be repromanded for its consumptioon, though i believe that people/companies should have to have a license to sell it.
then again i am quiet biased- stoned and drunk :D :D :D good night

Weed, and most other illegal substances, should be legal simply due the the fact that prohibition a) dosn't prevent consumption and b) causes social harm above and beyond damage caused by consumption. Throw in a few other factors, such as the difficulties in justifying why the government has the right to protect adequately informed and rational individuals from themselves, and the benifits of the alternative uses (eg medicinal use) of drugs like weed, and this prohibition can be shown , IMHO, to not only be misguided but immoral.
Of course from the same logic one must argue that it is just as immoral to force the problems of drug use upon nonconsenting others (eg I think smoking should be outlawed in public)

have you guys ever been to amstradam its horrible and they have legalized dear ol MARRY JANE. the reason its illegal is because ppl would use it a hell of a lot more if it wasnt. Amstradam is an example of that. But marry jane her self aint all that bad so long as you dont do to much to often. Kinda like a cigar.

I think that marijuana should be legal. Perhaps even outside of the pharmaceutical field. Marijuana has little to no chemically addictive properites. Depression has been the only detected side effect of withdrawl, and this may be completely psychological. The only serious deleterious is that it affects short term memory with extended use. This isn't nearly as bad as the effects of extended tobacco and alcohol use. The only downside is that it is not usually taken in small doses, like the other two drugs may be.

I think...yes legal, yes legal, no arresting.

I have been around plenty of addicts/alcoholics in my lifetime...but I still don't mind smoking it up a little now and then. Harmless. Not addictive. But fun once in awhile. Puts you in a good mood...relaxes you after a shitty week of work, etc.

You would really be surprised if you knew how many people really smoke it secretly....(maybe even your bosses).

And you can make it in pill form yourself...just take a vitamin capsule (or whatever you have in capsule form), pop it apart, dump its original contents out, fill with pot, put back together, and swallow it down. Hours of entertainment from the college days. :fluffle:

Anyway...its definitely not on the same level as heroin, and if you only want to use it as a "last resort" medical savior...its probably a little late-if morphine and heroin won't kill the pain, I can guarantee you pot won't.

its legal here

I believe all now illegal drugs should be de-criminalised. Note, I didn't say made legal.
Marijuana is a harmless drug despite what the voodoo press tell us. Smoke a joint and all you want to do is have fun. Have a beer or two, or a short and many people want to fight. And as has been said dope is a very useful medical aid. I know two people who take it for that. One to alleviate the agony of MS and the other to kill back pain which his doctors are unable to treat.
Cocaine, like it or not, is now used by many / most young and old adults as a recreational drugs and unless they have an 'addictive gene', get on with life and work the next day.
Heroin of course, is a bigger, badder drug. It is highly addictive and easily ruins the lives of the addicts and their families.
Personally, I believe alcohol is the most dangerous and lethal drug available, and available it is. Pubs, bars, clubs, shops, just about anywhere. How many people, when drunk, start fights, beat their wives (or husbands) and children, drive and kill or maim innocents, lose their jobs, become mentally unstable?
Now imagine the non-alcoholic drugs were de-criminalised. There would be a 'clinic' in most areas where addicts could go to get their fix, cleanly and safely. How would this be paid for? Well, remove the need for money for drugs in the form of robbery, mugging, housebreaking, theft etc not to mention the safer environment for the rest of us. The money saved on convictions, police time (including tracking down the drug related killings), prison costs and I think you'd either have the cash needed or at least enough to make it a viable concern.
Addicts would not only receive safe fixes but would be constantly advised and helped to come off their habit. Over time, many would clean themselves up, especially if the clinical authorities helped tham to find useful work.
One more very good result would be the dissapearence of dealers and their related crime.

Marijuana is a harmless drug despite what the voodoo press tell us.
No, there are some negative long-term effects, just not as bad as most other recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco included. I partially agree with what you say, but many drugs really do have deleterious effects that can be harmful to the individual, or others if certain drugs are smoked.

Smoke that Pot!!!

Medical Heroin is what they give you to kill the pain when Morpheme won't work.

Watch out for those morphemes! Phonemes and syntax are next!! Morphemes are a gateway linguistic principle.

Watch out for those morphemes! Phonemes and syntax are next!! Morphemes are a gateway linguistic principle.
You forgot lexemes.

You forgot lexemes.

Oooh, thanks. I knew I'd forgotten some things from lingustics.

Only under very controlled circumstances
No
Yes

Out of curiosity, why?

The harmful effects of heroin are *much* greater than those of marijuana. In fact, the harmful effects of marijuana are no worse than alcohol or tobacco - both of which are more addictive, so why should it be lumped in with heroin, which is *highly* addictive and harmful when used outside of medicine.

Actually heroin, while it is highly addictive isn't particularily harmful. Most of the harm associated with heroin use is either from how it is used (smoking heroin isn't good for your lungs, snorting it damages the tissues in your nose, improper injection practises lead to vein damage) or from the addiction that results from heavy use.

A heroin addict who is trained in how to properly inject themself and who has a steady stream of clean heroin will likely have no medical problems as a result of their heroin use, other then the addiction.

Opposed to say cocaine or tobacco addicts who develop health problems as a result of continued use of their addictive drugs.

Yes, it should be legal for medical needs.
Yes, it should be legal for all people.
It is really less harmful than booze.
Should users be arrested ... YES because at this point it's not legal and they know it but, choose to break the law.

I believe all now illegal drugs should be de-criminalised. Note, I didn't say made legal.
Marijuana is a harmless drug despite what the voodoo press tell us. Smoke a joint and all you want to do is have fun. Have a beer or two, or a short and many people want to fight. And as has been said dope is a very useful medical aid. I know two people who take it for that. One to alleviate the agony of MS and the other to kill back pain which his doctors are unable to treat.
Cocaine, like it or not, is now used by many / most young and old adults as a recreational drugs and unless they have an 'addictive gene', get on with life and work the next day.
Heroin of course, is a bigger, badder drug. It is highly addictive and easily ruins the lives of the addicts and their families.
Personally, I believe alcohol is the most dangerous and lethal drug available, and available it is. Pubs, bars, clubs, shops, just about anywhere. How many people, when drunk, start fights, beat their wives (or husbands) and children, drive and kill or maim innocents, lose their jobs, become mentally unstable?
Now imagine the non-alcoholic drugs were de-criminalised. There would be a 'clinic' in most areas where addicts could go to get their fix, cleanly and safely. How would this be paid for? Well, remove the need for money for drugs in the form of robbery, mugging, housebreaking, theft etc not to mention the safer environment for the rest of us. The money saved on convictions, police time (including tracking down the drug related killings), prison costs and I think you'd either have the cash needed or at least enough to make it a viable concern.
Addicts would not only receive safe fixes but would be constantly advised and helped to come off their habit. Over time, many would clean themselves up, especially if the clinical authorities helped tham to find useful work.
One more very good result would be the dissapearence of dealers and their related crime.

*sigh*

Heroin is no more or less PSYCHOLOGICALLY addictive than any other drug (probably less so than coke). Physically, nicotene and benzos (valium, xanax, etc) are more addictive. In order to become physically addicted to heroin you have to use it everyday for over a week - if you use it once and wait at least two days or three days before doing it again just to be super-ultra safe, you will not become physically addicted. Knowing this (which I guess with all the information supression going on many people may not, and so accidentally get themselves hooked) it is easy to avoid a physical addiction, unless of course, you are psychologically addicted. I have this theory. The more demonized a drug is the more a person has to want the very specific effect of that drug to seek it out and keep seeking it out, so chances are they are more likely to become psychologically addicted - thus it seems that most people who try heroin will get addicted, when if there were a larger sample of people using then the addiction rates would be no greater or lesser than for other hard drugs. Also, the more demonized a drug is the fewer people you are going to hear admitting that they use it sometimes because most people's automatic response is to jump to the conclusion that if you use, then you are a junkie. So no one hears about the recreational heroin user. Heroin is a drug that people only hear the worst about. Even the whole "unproductive" lifestyle of a junkie thing is largely because of the drug being legal and the shit they have to go through to get enough. In some studies where heroin maintence programs were tried, the majority of the addicts who had a steady, affordable supply were able to hold jobs and integrate with society better. I'm not saying its harmless like pot or anything, but people who think that it is worse than coke or meth have seen too much propaganda and not enough real information or real life.

oh yes, yes (even though I can't stand it myself), and fuck no. Prison is for people who commit crimes that actually hurt someone else.

Yes, yes, no.
But you knew I would say that already.

I don't know about this Marajuana stuff...I've never heard about it. On the other hand Marijuana is something I've heard about.
Do you have an opinion or did you just nitpick that guy to make you feel better about an unused education?
You just look like an arrogant prick when you point out someone's spelling or grammar mistakes.
Your intellect would be better displayed if you bothered to post something valid on the subject instead.

Do you have an opinion or did you just nitpick that guy to make you feel better about an unused education?
You just look like an arrogant prick when you point out someone's spelling or grammar mistakes.
Your intellect would be better displayed if you bothered to post something valid on the subject instead.
Meh, people do that all the time. I nitpick orthographical mistakes myself, but not without adding at least a little to the argument. Otherwise it's just a wasted post.

Prison is for people who commit crimes that actually hurt someone else.
Damn straight. And if the cops spent as much time looking for violent criminals and thieves as they do on Narcotics devisions, we'd all be sleeping a little better.

Meh, people do that all the time. I nitpick orthographical mistakes myself, but not without adding at least a little to the argument. Otherwise it's just a wasted post.
As long as you post something on topic.
I just think the easiest way to lose any intelligent argument for your point is to stick out your public tongue and call someone stupid.
You've got to have something better in your arsenal, you post intelligently (most of the time).
:p

yes, yes, no

and screw the non-smokers who say it should be illegal
til you have tried something, you have no business talking about it.

The pill form of Marijuana is known as Marinol (sp?). It is THC in pill form basically. The problem with this is MJ contains a lot more than just THC. In fact it contains (I've heard approximated) about 200 cannibinoids. THC is just one of which. Marinol will give you the hunger affects but not so much of the mood elevation or pain killing effects. This is why people support actual MJ use instead of pill form.

As far as the heath arguments about smoking a drug go in the medical MJ arguments, it is pretty much a moot point being as almost all Doctors who recommend it also recommend the use of a vaporizer. (Vaporizer heats the MJ to the point that the cannibinoids vaporize and can be inhaled, but not to the point that the MJ is actually burning. Thus you get the active ingredients without the harmful effects of the smoke.) I had a grandparent I know that medical MJ would have helped. Basically so depressed and sick he didn't want to eat. He pretty much nearly starved to death. I guarantee this would have made his last years more pleasant. He would have eaten, had less pain, and been in a better mood.

So, in answer to the question: Yes, Yes, and no.

Smoking is a victimless crime. Less health effects than Tobacco and Alcohol and less addictive. IMO the government should regulate and sell it. We get all the nonviolent MJ offenders out of our judicial system, save billions a year in enforcement money and man-hours; actually generate enormous amounts of funding through the government selling it. This money in turn can go to fund rehab programs, education, and deficit, whatever we want. Basically we should put in the same regulations against alcohol on MJ. Illegal for minors to possess and use, don't toke and drive, and can be fired for showing up to work high if it affects your performance.

Interestingly enough MJ was first made illegal by making hemp products illegal. The industrial paper and rope companies lobbied to have it banned, being as it posed such a business threat. Also curiously enough the industrial use of hemp could alleviate much of our deforestation problems worldwide.

yes, yes, no

and screw the non-smokers who say it should be illegal
til you have tried something, you have no business talking about it.

I've never tried scuicide. I've never jumped off a building. So does this mean I have no buisness saying they're wrong when I've not tried either one?
I'm sure that destroying my brain cells for no reason except to inhale smoke into my lungs and presumably make me feel good is the best idea ever created.
Anyone who needs drugs to be happy, feel good, or cam down should be shot.


As for "Morpheme" I'm well aware of my spelling error, I couldnl't remember how to spell the name of the drug, and my dictionary's too far away for me to care.
For the record, I'm working on a Linguistics degree right now, so it's not like I didn't know what I was doing. You should know spelling has no impat on the spoken language. So, when in doubt, use the other form.

And of course I didn't mean medical marijuana to be used with medical heroin. I meant used under the same controled environment, for what it does best. Things like Glycoma.

Anyone who needs drugs to be happy, feel good, or cam down should be shot.

Aha! Way to prove how happy and good and calm YOU feel... by advocating gun violence directed at practically everybody. How about in surgery, do you need anasthetic to make you feel better? No? You're beyond such things. You tell the doctor, "I'd prefer it if you shot me in the head with a gun than give me any sort of drug!"

and screw the non-smokers who say it should be illegal
til you have tried something, you have no business talking about it.
Well, there are proven deleterious effects of recreational drug use. Therefore it's like saying that because you haven't stabbed yourself in the arm with a knife, you can not say that it would hurt. I'm not saying that they should be banned, just that they can be dangerous, detrimental to physical and/or mental health, and very expensive. I myself have to be careful with what I do because I would become easily addicted to a substance like that, I believe.

I'm sure that destroying my brain cells for no reason except to inhale smoke into my lungs and presumably make me feel good is the best idea ever created.
Well, to be fair, it is alcohol that is the brain cell-destroyer. I don't know of many people who smoke alcohol... And that is also only in excessive quantities. I'm pretty sure that alcohol does not damage cerebral tissue if only ingested in small amounts.

Anyone who needs drugs to be happy, feel good, or cam down should be shot.
Ah, crap. Shoot me here and now, as well as quite a few others, since pharmacology is widely practised. If I don't stop taking Prozac, should you come to my house and shoot me? (Though I am aware of the impact that anti-depressants are having on the environment via urination...but I'm really not sure what to do about that. I guess I'm just too self-serving overall...but I think it may be more than that. I hope so.) Fie on those with ADD, for taking prescibed amphetamines! For shame that depressed people seek remedies for ailments that psycology can not fix! They should all just commit suicide or round up and be shot, according to your logic. So much for any teenagers! (I am one of them...)

Well, there are proven deleterious effects of recreational drug use. Therefore it's like saying that because you haven't stabbed yourself in the arm with a knife, you can not say that it would hurt. I'm not saying that they should be banned, just that they can be dangerous, detrimental to physical and/or mental health, and very expensive. I myself have to be careful with what I do because I would become easily addicted to a substance like that, I believe.


Well, to be fair, it is alcohol that is the brain cell-destroyer. I don't know of many people who smoke alcohol... And that is also only in excessive quantities. I'm pretty sure that alcohol does not damage cerebral tissue if only ingested in small amounts.


Ah, crap. Shoot me here and now, as well as quite a few others, since pharmacology is widely practised. If I don't stop taking Prozac, should you come to my house and shoot me? (Though I am aware of the impact that anti-depressants are having on the environment via urination...but I'm really not sure what to do about that. I guess I'm just too self-serving overall...but I think it may be more than that. I hope so.) Fie on those with ADD, for taking prescibed amphetamines! For shame that depressed people seek remedies for ailments that psycology can not fix! They should all just commit suicide or round up and be shot, according to your logic. So much for any teenagers! (I am one of them...)


Ah again, jumping to conclusions.
Excluding medical reasons, like clinical depression.
Again, I'm fine with any drug for MEDICAL reasons.

By the way, I'm a teenager too, 19. And I've never drunk alcohol for any reason other then the typical 6 year old wanting to know what it was.
Never smoked, no drugs either. I am opposed to ALL of them. And quite frankly, I stand by my belief. Anyone who needs drugs to feel good about themselves or have a good time, or calm down (Excluding any and all MEDICAL reasons as stated by a DOCTOR), should be shot.
I'm also well aware that this kills off most of my imediatl family, many of my freinds, and countless other people. But, I don't care. Although I am all for choice.. as in you choose to quit or be shot.

This drug crap is the reason I don't consider myself a Liberal (Nor am I a Libertarian, Conservatist, or Communist, I am none of them).

1.)Yes.
2.)Yes.
3.)Because we do it now, we don't have enough room for people that actually commit a violent crime, like rape, murder, assault, etc.

I've never tried scuicide. I've never jumped off a building. So does this mean I have no buisness saying they're wrong when I've not tried either one?

Bad analogy. Smoking is a victimless crime, and smoking a single joint wont hurt you in the slightest. So therefore, I call bullshit.

Yes dude! We totally have legalize marijuana man! but not only marijuana, everything!! all of it dude, coke, drip, chill pills, tack, all of it man, life is only worth livinng when you feel good man!

Ah again, jumping to conclusions.
No, actually just responding to what you actually said.

Excluding medical reasons, like clinical depression.
Again, I'm fine with any drug for MEDICAL reasons.
Need I point out that that was not stated before?

By the way, I'm a teenager too, 19. And I've never drunk alcohol for any reason other then the typical 6 year old wanting to know what it was.
Interestingly enough, my first real comsumption of alcohol was just this past Thanksgiving, when I was curious to see what effect it had on people first-hand. I decided that I don't really like the foggy effect, I didn't have much, but I could tell what a more intense version of it would be. Although I could have drunken myself into a stupor on Nov. 3rd... I haven't ever consumed any other type of drug like that though, at least not without psychiatric prescription.

Never smoked, no drugs either. I am opposed to ALL of them. And quite frankly, I stand by my belief. Anyone who needs drugs to feel good about themselves or have a good time, or calm down (Excluding any and all MEDICAL reasons as stated by a DOCTOR), should be shot.
I'm also well aware that this kills off most of my imediatl family, many of my freinds, and countless other people. But, I don't care. Although I am all for choice.. as in you choose to quit or be shot.
Well...it's good to know you're peaceful. I think your views are just a wee bit extremist, and I'm a pretty extremist myself. Shooting people who you disagree with is not exactly a practice I agree with. You can look down your nose, through your monocle, at them and say "Ha! I have greater willpower and self esteem than you do!", but murder because someone has turned to drugs when they have nothing else, or for any other reason (some are more justifiable than others) seems just a tad heartless and brutal to me.

This drug crap is the reason I don't consider myself a Liberal (Nor am I a Libertarian, Conservatist, or Communist, I am none of them).
So your only political opinion is that there should be no recreational drugs? You have no opinion on liberalism or conservatism? Gay rights, abortion? No libertarian or authoritarian ideals? Taxes, size of government? No envisioned utopia for your perfect state? What the hell are you doing on NationStates?

You are able to be a liberal, but disagree on the one point of recreational drug use. I personally suggest the Prohibition Party for you, which I believe is fairly left-wing.

Marijuana is a beautiful, beautiful plant. Just sitting quietly amongst the maturing plants can eliminate stress and tension. Their natural aroma impacts you on a deep level...this is human-nip. This is good, this is natural and this is very, very human. There's nothing to get uptight about.

If you don't like smoking it, you can prepare it any number of other ways. I like creating tinctures with the smaller stalks, tea with the outer leaves, and the smaller, inner leaves I use to bake adult brownies. The trunks I dry and make into wands for Pagan friends. Ultimately, I make use of the entire plant, and every use is different from the other. I smoke it, eat it, drink it, and venerate it in so doing.

I've shared it with friends and family, I've given it freely to those in chronic pain, and occasionally sold bits of it when I needed money - it's a tie that binds us closer together. No amount of pills, booze, or tobacco can be claimed to have the same socialising effect as good old marijuana.

I'm having some right now, and the minor, nagging headache I've had for the last half hour has instantly abated. Also, an itchy spot on my right forearm feels suddenly uninflamed. I feel slightly hungrier than I did a moment ago, but I'm not about to eat myself out of house and home. My blood sugar level feels like it's dropped a little, but I can fix that with a sip of orange juice.

Yep, I feel fine. I felt well enough before, but now I feel...fine. That the sensations I'm experiencing are vilified, Hell, that they're actually illegal, is an affront to the human condition. An assault on something that is fundamentally good, altogether benign, and eminently useful.

That's my three cents' worth. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful plants...

You may begin shiping imediatly.

SHOOT THE HIPPIES AND BURN 'EM! (j/k)

Actually heroin, while it is highly addictive isn't particularily harmful. Most of the harm associated with heroin use is either from how it is used (smoking heroin isn't good for your lungs, snorting it damages the tissues in your nose, improper injection practises lead to vein damage) or from the addiction that results from heavy use.

A heroin addict who is trained in how to properly inject themself and who has a steady stream of clean heroin will likely have no medical problems as a result of their heroin use, other then the addiction.

Opposed to say cocaine or tobacco addicts who develop health problems as a result of continued use of their addictive drugs.

Wrong.

Heroin is (a) highly addictive and (b) a drug that you can form a tolerance to.

Giving an addict a steady amount of heroin, no matter how clean, will eventually result in their death. WHy? Because, to get the same high (and the addict *never* gets the same high as the first time - which is what they want), the addict has to inject higher and higher and higher doses. This is referred to as chasing the white rabbit - and it it what leads to the death of most heroin addicts.

Not to mention one simple fact. *Any* drug that causes an addiction is a bad drug. If you can use it recreationally every now and then and get away with it - you'll probably be ok. However, if you get to the point (as heroin addicts often do after the *first try*) that you simply cannot go on without it, it is a harmful effect.

"Can't we all just get a bong?"

Smoking is a victimless crime

Tell that to all the people dieing of second hand smoke lung cancer.
Or my uncle who died a slow painful death because of drugs. Simple drugs like marijuana at that.

Tell that to all the people dieing of second hand smoke lung cancer.
Which is an very exagerrated risk, if I may add

By the way, I'm a teenager too, 19. And I've never drunk alcohol for any reason other then the typical 6 year old wanting to know what it was.
Never smoked, no drugs either. I am opposed to ALL of them. And quite frankly, I stand by my belief.

What if your beliefs are different from my beliefs? What if the consumption of cannibis or peyote is part of my religion?

By using force (quit or be shot) you are removing something much more precious than sobriety. It's called freedom. And if the choice is between safety and freedom, I choose freedom, and I'll take my chances with the odd beer drinker or pot smoker.

If you don't like smoking it, you can prepare it any number of other ways. I like creating tinctures with the smaller stalks, tea with the outer leaves, and the smaller, inner leaves I use to bake adult brownies. The trunks I dry and make into wands for Pagan friends. Ultimately, I make use of the entire plant, and every use is different from the other. I smoke it, eat it, drink it, and venerate it in so doing.
I do approve of this, as I am against that wasteful mindset society has assumed. But, I mean you're sounding like the Greeks and olives, and Hindus with cows. The veneration part sounds a little obsessive to me.

I've shared it with friends and family, I've given it freely to those in chronic pain, and occasionally sold bits of it when I needed money - it's a tie that binds us closer together.
Nothing to bring two people together like overpriced, illegal, recreational drug vending.

I'm having some right now, and the minor, nagging headache I've had for the last half hour has instantly abated. Also, an itchy spot on my right forearm feels suddenly uninflamed.
You are, of course, aware that when something is inflammed, there is an infection? And that the main reason it hurts so much is that your body is trying to fight off the infection, and that stressing the inflammed area can lead to a more serious infection by facilitating the agent? And, you are also aware that there are legal painkillers? Try acetaminophen or ibuprofen.

Yep, I feel fine. I felt well enough before, but now I feel...fine. That the sensations I'm experiencing are vilified, Hell, that they're actually illegal, is an affront to the human condition. An assault on something that is fundamentally good, altogether benign, and eminently useful.

That's my three cents' worth. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful plants...
You are high right now. You said that you're "having some right now", and I think that may be part of the reason you used phraseology as you did. Is that really the best time to make judgements on recreational drugs?

You also realise that you have damaged your short term memory? That's what extended use of marijuana does to you.

Now, I'm not saying marijuana is worse than other drugs. On the contrary, it is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. I also think that it should be decriminalised. I've never used any myself, but I know what it does to people.

Also, don't broadcast the fact that you're using an illegal drug. Or that you're involved in the black market. Neither is a good idea.

Oh, go worry about your own self. I'm an adult, and perfectly within my rights to make the decisions that effect my own existence, whatever those decisions may be.

And as far as the black market goes, perhaps you didn't catch what I said - I SOMETIMES sell a little - when I NEED the money. I rarely have needed to do so, but at certain times I have parted with my lovely plants, if only to keep some mean-spirited bean counter, sitting in an office somewhere, happy. Everybody else is happy enough with some lovely marijuana, but the stainless-steel hearts of money-people beat only for love of money. Alas.

Were you trying to imply that by making this admission, I am leaving myself open for some form of legal prosecution? Are you the one to point the finger?What, you think I'm some sort of terrorist threat? Should I be left to rot in a dog kennel, Har har? You're just making mouth-noises with your typing fingers. I laugh.

Why should I spend money on pharmaceuticals made out of things I know nothing about, by people I don't know, when I can have the same or better effects from the marijuana (or any of the other multidinuous herbs and plants that grow in my garden)? Always know your chemist. I'm not on a first-name basis with the pharmacologists who concoct ibuprofen or aceteminophen. If I really want something like that, I can just boil some willow for the aspergum, anyway. But tetrahydracannabinol works better anyway, and for more than a headache.

And I do have an affinity for it. It is human-nip, it is medicinal, it smells lovely, people have a need for it, and some of them don't mind trading work-credits for it. So what's so wrong about it - and what's wrong with venerating it, truly this is direct evidence of the handicraft of God. No other single plant is as versatile, so perfectly suited to the care, nurturing, and furtherment of the human species as blessed, blessed Marijuana.

May you come to your senses and discover the truth and the beauty of this magnificent plant.

Out of curiosity, why?

The harmful effects of heroin are *much* greater than those of marijuana. In fact, the harmful effects of marijuana are no worse than alcohol or tobacco - both of which are more addictive, so why should it be lumped in with heroin, which is *highly* addictive and harmful when used outside of medicine.

Heroin is a derivative of morphine. I dont think they use it in hospitals though..

Were you trying to imply that by making this admission, I am leaving myself open for some form of legal prosecution? Are you the one to point the finger?What, you think I'm some sort of terrorist threat? Should I be left to rot in a dog kennel, Har har? You're just making mouth-noises with your typing fingers. I laugh.
Though I advocate philisophical thinking, and am aware that marijuana promotes this, you are so high right now. I realise you're enjoying yourself, but wait 'til you're no longer intoxicated to post.

Always know your chemist. I'm not on a first-name basis with the pharmacologists who concoct ibuprofen or aceteminophen.
So you know, those are the chemical names for Advil and Tylenol. There are quite a few doctors who recommend usage of those drugs.

If I really want something like that, I can just boil some willow for the aspergum, anyway. But tetrahydracannabinol works better anyway, and for more than a headache.
That may be true, but the two other aforementioned drugs do no permenantly impair short term cognitive functioning. It also can cause paranoia. You apparently are a regular user, so I'm sure you may have at least a little trouble remembering things than you used to. At least in the short term.

And I do have an affinity for it. It is human-nip, it is medicinal, it smells lovely, people have a need for it, and some of them don't mind trading work-credits for it. So what's so wrong about it - and what's wrong with venerating it, truly this is direct evidence of the handicraft of God. No other single plant is as versatile, so perfectly suited to the care, nurturing, and furtherment of the human species as blessed, blessed Marijuana.

May you come to your senses and discover the truth and the beauty of this magnificent plant.
Goddmanit, now you're saying you're a creationist? God did not make marijuana, nature did. It is not a blessed plant, it is a plant that you worship because you are addicted to it. You have no chemical addiction, but you obviously have a hedonistic need for cannabinoids.

I think that all drugs should be legal. The government doesn't need to look after adults in this way.

I think that legalising drugs would be the best way to eliminate gangsterism and most crime. Most gangsters' primary income is from drug trafficking. If this could be done legally, they would bbe out of business. Same with drug dealers. If these drugs could be regulated by the government people could go to licenced businesses to buy them.

I think that all drugs should be legal. The government doesn't need to look after adults in this way.

I think that legalising drugs would be the best way to eliminate gangsterism and most crime. Most gangsters' primary income is from drug trafficking. If this could be done legally, they would bbe out of business. Same with drug dealers. If these drugs could be regulated by the government people could go to licenced businesses to buy them.
Well, the adults usually don't look after themselves well enough on their own... But I agree with what you said. The government could get quite a bit of money from taxing recreational drug sales. If someone wants a drug, they're gonna get it no matter whether it's legal or not. Or they'll go to prison. It would also ensure that there would be safer drugs, and police could concentrate on more important issues.

I take a bubblebath, and find this awaiting me. Okay, here we go, then:

Though I advocate philisophical thinking, and am aware that marijuana promotes this, you are so high right now. I realise you're enjoying yourself, but wait 'til you're no longer intoxicated to post.

- Actually, you're wrong there. I'm as straight as an arrow at the moment, Gnostikos. Hence there's no need for me to wait to reply...and even if I were high, there's really nothing preventing me from posting in any event. Certainly not you.


So you know, those are the chemical names for Advil and Tylenol. There are quite a few doctors who recommend usage of those drugs.

- Yes, so I know. Isn't knowledge wonderful? Like knowing that doctors are paid by pharmeceutical companies to recommend expensive brand-name remedies? That's wonderful to know. Thanks for sharing.


That may be true, but the two other aforementioned drugs do no permenantly impair short term cognitive functioning. It also can cause paranoia. You apparently are a regular user, so I'm sure you may have at least a little trouble remembering things than you used to. At least in the short term.

- by 'It' I'm assuming you're referring to the demon-weed. Yes, under the right circumstances it can promote paranoia, but that has far less to do with THC than circumstance. Try having it in an atmosphere lacking in fear & loathing - and all you're left with is a mild (let me emphasize this: MILD) sense of euphoria. Yes, I will admit to being a 'regular user' - just as many other people are 'regular users' of alcohol, a drug that's actually worse for users, but one that's proscribed and sanctified by government. I feel no remorse for my personal decisions.
You are incorrect in your assumption that my memory, short-term or otherwise, is unduly impaired. All kidding aside, I know first-hand about short-term memory loss. My mother died as a result of a particularly nasty little brain tumour that grew rapidly between the two hemispheres of her brain, resulting in near-total loss of her short-term memory. Luckily, she felt no pain. I was with her right toward the end, Gnostikos, and trust me, there are far, far worse ways to die. Every moment became for her a moment of joy and discovery, as when she was a child. There was a certain beauty and symmetry to her fate, and though I sincerely hope never to succumb to cancer of the brain, I know I'd be fortunate to exit this life with as pure a heart as she. So spare me your platitudes.


Goddmanit, now you're saying you're a creationist? God did not make marijuana, nature did. It is not a blessed plant, it is a plant that you worship because you are addicted to it. You have no chemical addiction, but you obviously have a hedonistic need for cannabinoids.

There's more to spacetime than what you, Gnostikos, are capable of either sensing or inferring through the medium of technology. I know in my heart of hearts that on some level, spacetime is an exquisite expression, and that that expression did not evolve in a vacuum. The word 'God' sums things up in a compact way that others can relate to. I don't need to find a way to communicate this idea to you, specifically - as I'm not seeking your approval. As you say, nature made marijuana. Nature also made us. Just as nature made flowering plants, and insects to form a symbiotic relationship. Just as nature made certain nuts that certain parrots feed on, with the end result being more trees for more parrots to continue a cycle of interdependence that is of mutual benefit. Are you so blinkered that you can't be persuaded that marijuana is just such a plant?
As far as worship and addiction are concerned - my adoration of marijuana is as deeply personal as is my relationship with God. You say, or rather, imply, that you have no such relationship. Perhaps if you were willing to approach matters of spirituality with an inquiring mind, you might gain enough perspective to understand my point of view. Until then, I can't think that we'll have much more to discuss in these matters.

Hedonistic? Damn right. I wasn't born into spacetime in order to forgo pleasure...or live to live a stoic existence. There's altogether too much fun to be had to sit and stew in gloom. Look into it.

Wrong.

Heroin is (a) highly addictive and (b) a drug that you can form a tolerance to.

Giving an addict a steady amount of heroin, no matter how clean, will eventually result in their death. WHy? Because, to get the same high (and the addict *never* gets the same high as the first time - which is what they want), the addict has to inject higher and higher and higher doses. This is referred to as chasing the white rabbit - and it it what leads to the death of most heroin addicts.

Not to mention one simple fact. *Any* drug that causes an addiction is a bad drug. If you can use it recreationally every now and then and get away with it - you'll probably be ok. However, if you get to the point (as heroin addicts often do after the *first try*) that you simply cannot go on without it, it is a harmful effect.

1)The definition of physical addiction is devoloping a tolerance, therefore your points a and b are just repetition.
2)Eventually tolerance will steady out. It doesn't keep requiring more and more forever. It is different for individuals but tends to be within a cerain range.
3)If an *addict* never gets the same high as a first time, that is a perception - chasing a memory. The physical realities of herion are that unless one develops a physical tolerance, then the same amount will produce the same high. Even people who have built a tolerence, even addicts, who abstain for a while will be able to get the same high on LESS.
4)What leads to OD is the fact on the damn streets you never know what purity you are going to get. So lets say you live in an area, and each most bags are about 50% H. and 50% cut. Say through a dealer not mixing a cut well, or a shipment from an area where the shit tends to be more pure or whatever a person then gets a bag that is 80% H and 20% cut. The user then mixes the shot or snorts or whatever the same physical amount as always but, with so much more actual drug in the mix, there is the overdose. That is the price of keeping heroin on the streets. Opiate maintenance programs do NOT lead to OD death. That is why they exist. In the U.S. they use methadone - it produces a lesser "high" if any but as far as being able to OD on and as far as producing physical addiction, and the strength of that physical addiction methadone is fucking more dangerous than heroin.

Alchohol causes addiction- psychological and physical (in fact, hard core alcoholics can DIE from physical withdrawals. Withdrawal from opiates is never deadly). Does that mean alcoholics have been "addicted" since their first drink? No. It takes time to produce physical addiction. Even with heroin. Yes, heroin can produce physical addiction in a relatively short time (approx a week of steadily staying high) but that is different from one use. Anyone who knows to leave breaks and is mentally able to resist staying high (and don't argue that heroin makes everyone want it. I've known people who have tried it and hated it, I've known recreational heroin users, and I have known addicts) will not become addicted.

Oh, look - here come Gnostikos again...quick, hide the stuff...

Aww, he went offline. Guess I scared him off...

Shucks.

- Actually, you're wrong there. I'm as straight as an arrow at the moment, Gnostikos. Hence there's no need for me to wait to reply...and even if I were high, there's really nothing preventing me from posting in any event. Certainly not you.
Ok. You had said that:
I'm having some right now, and the minor, nagging headache I've had for the last half hour has instantly abated. Also, an itchy spot on my right forearm feels suddenly uninflamed. so I just assumed that you were actually doing what you said. Sorry, my bad.

- Yes, so I know. Isn't knowledge wonderful? Like knowing that doctors are paid by pharmeceutical companies to recommend expensive brand-name remedies? That's wonderful to know. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, knowledge is indeed wonderful. So is buying generic products that are significantly cheaper. Not quite as wonderful as knowledge, though.

Try having it in an atmosphere lacking in fear & loathing - and all you're left with is a mild (let me emphasize this: MILD) sense of euphoria.
If you say so. I've never had it before, so I do not know the intensity.

Yes, I will admit to being a 'regular user' - just as many other people are 'regular users' of alcohol, a drug that's actually worse for users, but one that's proscribed and sanctified by government. I feel no remorse for my personal decisions.
I agree with you. I think that marijuana is better for you than alcohol. It's just that marijuana isn't nearly as popular as alcohol. Marijuana was banned and nothing overtly bad has happened because of it. Prohibition produced the organised gang behaviour than remains today.

You are incorrect in your assumption that my memory, short-term or otherwise, is unduly impaired.
Not unduly, but regualr, extended use of marijuana has proven to be detrimental to short term memory. I don't know how much, but the effect is there. I'm not trying to boast about a good short term memory, however. Mine sucks bad.

There's more to spacetime than what you, Gnostikos, are capable of either sensing or inferring through the medium of technology. I know in my heart of hearts that on some level, spacetime is an exquisite expression, and that that expression did not evolve in a vacuum. The word 'God' sums things up in a compact way that others can relate to. I don't need to find a way to communicate this idea to you, specifically - as I'm not seeking your approval.
I know that I am certainly not able to sense many things that go on around me. And you may be right about what you are say, and I'd like to understand what you are saying better. It sounds intriguing.

As you say, nature made marijuana. Nature also made us. Just as nature made flowering plants, and insects to form a symbiotic relationship. Just as nature made certain nuts that certain parrots feed on, with the end result being more trees for more parrots to continue a cycle of interdependence that is of mutual benefit. Are you so blinkered that you can't be persuaded that marijuana is just such a plant?
I might be able to. Where did marijuana evolve? I know that the word came from the Mexican Spanish word marihuana. I also know that it is called "hashish", coming from Arabic, and "bhang" from the Hindu bhag. Humans evolved in Africa, so this will be impossible if Cannabis sativa evolved anywhere but Africa. However, I doubt your claim because agriculture is not something that evolved with humanity, it was something humans discovered long after we evolved to our relatively current state. Cultivation to aid marijuana reproduction seems extremely unlikely to me. But I see where you're coming from.

As far as worship and addiction are concerned - my adoration of marijuana is as deeply personal as is my relationship with God. You say, or rather, imply, that you have no such relationship. Perhaps if you were willing to approach matters of spirituality with an inquiring mind, you might gain enough perspective to understand my point of view. Until then, I can't think that we'll have much more to discuss in these matters.
Well, I have approached matters of spirituality with an open mind. I've tried both Buddhism and neo-paganism. They affected me some, but neither appealed to me enough for me to continue. I admire both, but did not carry through. I have decided that I'm an agnostic deist, but I still ahve an open mind as long as the people are not screaming that evolution isn't true.

Hedonistic? Damn right. I wasn't born into spacetime in order to forgo pleasure...or live to live a stoic existence. There's altogether too much fun to be had to sit and stew in gloom. Look into it.
To be fair, I'm pretty damn hedonistic myself. That's why I'm afraid of trying marijuana--I may like it a little too much. I do need to loosen up some too, you are right about that as well.

Overall, I just want to establish that I pretty much agree with you. I was mainly playing devil's advocate. I think marijuana should be decriminalised. I just think your devotion to it is a little too strong. Believe me, I also know about obsession...I have an extremely obsessive personality, and I know that if it is too intense for any one thing, there can be undesirable consequences.

He came back!

HA HA HA HA

Oh, this is priceless. Gnostikos, while you're very good with the whole 'quotations' business, don't you ever bother to look at the times given for the various posts?

Your initial response-cum-dissection was in regards to something I posted late last night. My rebuttal was made at or around noontime EST.

Perhaps if you took greater care in your responses, you wouldn't make such silly, silly mistakes.

HA HA HA Oh, that's rich.

He came back!
Indeed, but I was a little busy typing, not leaving.

Bumping for Gnostikos' benefit - look at my (edited) previous post. Okay, maybe you're not as much of a knee-jerk reactionary as I had you pegged for.

Seeing as you're apparently a lil' bit interested, Cannabis Sativa is indigenous to many parts of the world, While Cannabis Indica is traditionally indigenous primarily in the Indus valley region. One of the oldest pieces of human-produced clay pottery ever found was a chillum, an open-ended, cone-shaped device used (with two hands) to smoke Charas, a form of hashish derived from Cannabis Indica.

Marijuana has been in use for thousands of years, long before the secrets of fermentation were seized upon. Marijuana will continue to be in use for thousands more. No recent streak of absurd neo-puritanism can possibly hope to eradicate part of our birthright. And marijuana IS part of our collective birthright. Shame on those who would deny themselves and others their pleasure, their tranquility, their method for retaining food in light of devastating illness, their comaraderie and their fellowship. Shame on those of us who would let it be so.

Sorry if I ended up slagging you unduly. I am passionate in my feelings.

Your initial response-cum-dissection was in regards to something I posted late last night. My rebuttal was made at or around noontime EST.
Aw, crap. You are very right in mocking me--I should have checked that. I'm just too lazy, I guess. But that really doesn't respond to anything else besides me saying you were high. I thought that was a reletively minor point.

Just legalize it, barely anything bad will come with it.

Hell tax it.

No big deal. You're not the droid I'm looking for...




Check my last edited post for further details. Makey nicey?

Sorry if I ended up slagging you unduly. I am passionate in my feelings.
Not a problem, I do the same thing quite often.

But your arguments can be quite convincing... Although there is disagreement on whether there are actually different species of marijuana, or just cultivates. Also, just so you know, the format for binomial nomenclature is an Uppercase genus and a lowercase species, often italicised.

I had no idea that the use of marijuana had gone back so far or was so widespread. Since marijuana was originally outlawed int he U.S. because plastic and cloth industries were afraid of hemp as a material becoming popular, perhaps there is more merit to your argument that I had originally given it. I think I will look into that a little more, since it might explain why there are no physically addictive properites or overt deleterious effects, which is quite uncommon for recreational drugs. Usually there is at least some dangerous part to using them (like how LSD, if I recall correctly, was originally thought to be completely safe, but it was then found to be stored int he fatty tissue of the brain, which could indice the hallucinogenic effect at random times). If what you say is right...that would significantly change my view on cannabinoid use... With respect to the law, however. That might be a deterrant.

Well all's well that ends well. Unfortunately, Real Life is calling me, and I must go prepare my SO's dinner. Perhaps I'll have a chance to post again later tonight.

Thanks for the heads-up re: scientific nomenclature, I'll try bearing it in mind, but...my short-term memory loss might prevent me from fully absorbing it (LOL)

Really, though...as hallucinogens go, marijuana is as benign as can be. Before I go, did you know that the theobromide found in chocolate is a neurotoxin? Most sensible animals (like birds) won't touch it. They're keen enough to know it's poison. But we loooooove it to death.

See you later, dude.

Really, though...as hallucinogens go, marijuana is as benign as can be. Before I go, did you know that the theobromide found in chocolate is a neurotoxin? Most sensible animals (like birds) won't touch it. They're keen enough to know it's poison. But we loooooove it to death.
Oh, I know that marijuana only has slight hallucinogenic properties, that was just an example of negative effects that aren't immediately apparent, which marijuana seems to overall be lacking. And no, I did not know that chocolate contains a neurotoxin...either it must not be too harmful to humans or we're large enough so ingestion in those doses doesn't harm us. I hope...even if I'm not a big fan of chocolate. Why don't we go and drink some black widow poison while we're at it? Though I guess dogs are excluded from the "sensible animals" category, since my dog loves chocolate, or at least that's what it seems from the few times he's managed to get into some.

OK im being stupid and lazy - i cant be arsed to read through the other posts (including my own stupid drunk one from last night :D ), so...

Could someone tell me what the arguement against not legalising or decriminalising marijuana is? I just can't see why one would be against this.

Could someone tell me what the arguement against not legalising or decriminalising marijuana is? I just can't see why one would be against this.
Because there are some self-righteous pricks who think that all recreational drugs should be banned. That is pretty much all, since it's been established that there are amazingly few deleterious effects to marijuana use.

<obligatory Bill Hicks quote>"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the ----ing law?"</obligatory Bill Hicks quote>

<obligatory Bill Hicks quote>"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the ----ing law?"</obligatory Bill Hicks quote>
It's easy: humans like ignoring the laws of nature, even though they still apply to Homo sapiens.

I think this makes a valid point in the discussion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20041130/cm_usatoday/musttheillbemadetosufferforsuchmeagergain

Because there are some self-righteous pricks who think that all recreational drugs should be banned. That is pretty much all, since it's been established that there are amazingly few deleterious effects to marijuana use.

would these be the same self-righteous pricks who argue that alchohol and tobacco should remain legal, while marijuana - being less harmful, ever more popular, and more socially and individually damaging than either of those two - should remain illegal?
Or are these the sorts of 'pricks' that keep this harmless and healing herb illegal because it's illegal now and the law must be obeyed without question?

Or maybe both? ;)

Marijuana is much safer then both tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs in existance, and nicotine is more harmful then most people know. On the other hand, there are no long term side effects to THC in marijuana, other then the obvious cancer and lung problems that comes with smoking to much of anything, and thats why there are vaporizers :) :p :D

Should Medical Marajuana be legal? Should Marjuana be legal? Or should we arrest the Marajuana Users?

Yes. I would start with arresting you stoner. Marijuana.
;)
j/k

... and nicotine is more harmful then most people know.
I learnt in A-level Biology that one pipette-drop of pure Nicotine, dropped onto a person's skin, would be a lethal dose. Not to mention the incredible addictiveness of the drug.

On the other hand, there are no long term side effects to THC in marijuana, other then the obvious cancer and lung problems that comes with smoking to much of anything, and thats why there are vaporizers

indeed - sure, you get lung cancer from smoking pot, but you get some kind of problem from doing anything that you actually enjoy - eating certain kinds of food for example.
oh and sypathy please - my vapouriser broke in the mail :( :( :( :(

This (my post) doesn't deserve it's own thread, so while it doesn't neccisarily contribute it's a little minor culture jam for the pot activists.

Get a birdfeeder and fill it with marijuana seeds so that the birds spread fertilized seeds everywhere. The more that do that the more the plant, which is pretty resiliant, will start to grow wild. It won't have the effect the person who proposed it to me will have, which is make it impossible to make illegal since it's everywhere, but it is a low impact civil disobidience.

Just don't expect any of those plants to reach flowering.

would these be the same self-righteous pricks who argue that alchohol and tobacco should remain legal, while marijuana - being less harmful, ever more popular, and more socially and individually damaging than either of those two - should remain illegal?
Or are these the sorts of 'pricks' that keep this harmless and healing herb illegal because it's illegal now and the law must be obeyed without question?

Or maybe both? ;)

I think he means me. The one who believes all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be banned (Except for medical purposes.. which tobacco has none of I understand, alcohol is used as a dissenfectant sometimes though, but you won't drink that will you?)

And as far as I'm concerned, I am withdrawing myself from this topic. I had origonally hoped to bring a more even discussion here (Not just all people who are for it, as seems to be the case). Unfortunatly, I get flamed, even though I try not to. People ignore some of my strongest arguments, and frankly the only really intelligent rebuttles I got here were later replaced for flames (See your origonal quote).

My last point I plan to re-post. My uncle spent 2 weeks in a hospital bed, in a slow and painful death because of his use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Before he died he was sick with Juandice, couldn't move, and couldn't see. As well, the doctors had to give him heroin to ease thepain, he still felt it, and lots of it.
I mentioned it before, yet no one noticed.

All marijuana should be completely legalized. You should be able to grow it, smoke it, sell it, whatever.
Marijuana is a natural herb. It is no different than taking an herb in a pill form, in fact it is probably better.

Marijuana does not cause you to get in a car, drive like an idiot and kill someone.

Marijuana does not cause you to beat your wife.

If anything, marijuana creates a laidback, creative society. It is the ultimate deterrant to crime--when you are stoned, you don't care if someone pisses you off, it's just not worth the effort. Most of the time, it's like 'whatever', you don't even get pissed off to begin with.
Alcohol, on the other hand, does cause all these problems. It also destroys your liver and your heart.
Yet alcohol is legal.
Marijuana is not.
It makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyone who needs drugs to be happy, feel good, or cam down should be shot.



Come shoot me the lil guy, I fucking dare you.

I think this makes a valid point in the discussion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20041130/cm_usatoday/musttheillbemadetosufferforsuchmeagergain


TRy again.

My last point I plan to re-post. My uncle spent 2 weeks in a hospital bed, in a slow and painful death because of his use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Before he died he was sick with Juandice, couldn't move, and couldn't see. As well, the doctors had to give him heroin to ease thepain, he still felt it, and lots of it.
I mentioned it before, yet no one noticed.

And that is why we should shoot them?

And that is why we should shoot them?

No, I believe they should be shot. And I brought it in as evidence to my strong belief against drugs.
I brought that up as reasoning against the legalization.
In the end, if it's illegal, I don't care how, but I'll be happy about the subject.
But if I have to take care of it myself, meaning if I'm forced to be directly exposed to it, I'm more likely to take such drastic measures then anything.

I think instead of stopping all together, I'll just ignore stupidity and respond to those with intellegence.

I think he means me. The one who believes all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be banned (Except for medical purposes.. which tobacco has none of I understand, alcohol is used as a dissenfectant sometimes though, but you won't drink that will you?)

And as far as I'm concerned, I am withdrawing myself from this topic. I had origonally hoped to bring a more even discussion here (Not just all people who are for it, as seems to be the case). Unfortunatly, I get flamed, even though I try not to. People ignore some of my strongest arguments, and frankly the only really intelligent rebuttles I got here were later replaced for flames (See your origonal quote).

My last point I plan to re-post. My uncle spent 2 weeks in a hospital bed, in a slow and painful death because of his use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Before he died he was sick with Juandice, couldn't move, and couldn't see. As well, the doctors had to give him heroin to ease thepain, he still felt it, and lots of it.
I mentioned it before, yet no one noticed.
I didnt mean anyone in particular - I just joined this thread. I was referring to a general point of view that you usually get in these drug-debates. It was not a flame.
I sypathise for the loss of your uncle, however was it the drugs, tobacco and alcohol that caused the medical problems, or did they simply exasperate a pre-existing condition?
Plus, if the former, not everybody who uses drugs overdoes the drugs - except of course the 'hard drugs' like Heroin - highly addictive ones - that I would argue should always remain illegal. On the topic of this thread, pot smokers do not overdo their use of the drug, and even if they did this would never cause any medical problems except that of cancer (and short term memory loss but you can forget about that ;) ). I believe that cancer is an acceptable risk for individuals to chance.

Unfortunatly, I get flamed, even though I try not to. People ignore some of my strongest arguments, and frankly the only really intelligent rebuttles I got here were later replaced for flames (See your origonal quote)
If you want to wonder why you get flamed, don't say things like this:
Anyone who needs drugs to be happy, feel good, or cam down should be shot.
Anyone who needs drugs to feel good about themselves or have a good time, or calm down (Excluding any and all MEDICAL reasons as stated by a DOCTOR), should be shot.
That is begging to be flamed. It's hard to pay attention to your rationale when you say things like that. It makes you sound like an indiscriminate eugenist, kind of like Hitler, but based on lifestyle choices instead of heritage or race. And, if it makes you feel any better, I don't actually think you're a prick. I just said that for effect.

Medicinal should be legal, although I'm still out on just casual use.

Marijuana is a beautiful, beautiful plant. Just sitting quietly amongst the maturing plants can eliminate stress and tension. Their natural aroma impacts you on a deep level...this is human-nip. This is good, this is natural and this is very, very human. There's nothing to get uptight about.

If you don't like smoking it, you can prepare it any number of other ways. I like creating tinctures with the smaller stalks, tea with the outer leaves, and the smaller, inner leaves I use to bake adult brownies. The trunks I dry and make into wands for Pagan friends. Ultimately, I make use of the entire plant, and every use is different from the other. I smoke it, eat it, drink it, and venerate it in so doing.

I've shared it with friends and family, I've given it freely to those in chronic pain, and occasionally sold bits of it when I needed money - it's a tie that binds us closer together. No amount of pills, booze, or tobacco can be claimed to have the same socialising effect as good old marijuana.

I'm having some right now, and the minor, nagging headache I've had for the last half hour has instantly abated. Also, an itchy spot on my right forearm feels suddenly uninflamed. I feel slightly hungrier than I did a moment ago, but I'm not about to eat myself out of house and home. My blood sugar level feels like it's dropped a little, but I can fix that with a sip of orange juice.

Yep, I feel fine. I felt well enough before, but now I feel...fine. That the sensations I'm experiencing are vilified, Hell, that they're actually illegal, is an affront to the human condition. An assault on something that is fundamentally good, altogether benign, and eminently useful.

That's my three cents' worth. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful plants...


You are the MAN!

On the topic of this thread, pot smokers do not overdo their use of the drug, and even if they did this would never cause any medical problems except that of cancer (and short term memory loss but you can forget about that ;) ). I believe that cancer is an acceptable risk for individuals to chance.
Well, I'm not sure if I have any short term memory left to lose ;) , but there are huge amounts of carcinogenic chemicals in our environment. Even hemicals that interfere with the production or use of ATP (primarily pesticides) can cause cancer. And many chemicals that we use may actually not have carcinogenic properties, but gains them when mixed with other chemicals in our environment. sure, smoking increases the chance of lung cancer, but the cancer rate worldwide has increased greatly since humanity stated using chemicals the way we do. It's gotten better since hte environmentalist movement began by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, but it hasn't gone away. And I do agree that if someone wants to risk cancer that they should be able to--as long as they don't also endanger anyone else. Though it's not like inhaling so many fumes from fossil fuels is too good for us either...

I didnt mean anyone in particular - I just joined this thread. I was referring to a general point of view that you usually get in these drug-debates. It was not a flame.
I sypathise for the loss of your uncle, however was it the drugs, tobacco and alcohol that caused the medical problems, or did they simply exasperate a pre-existing condition?
Plus, if the former, not everybody who uses drugs overdoes the drugs - except of course the 'hard drugs' like Heroin - highly addictive ones - that I would argue should always remain illegal. On the topic of this thread, pot smokers do not overdo their use of the drug, and even if they did this would never cause any medical problems except that of cancer (and short term memory loss but you can forget about that ;) ). I believe that cancer is an acceptable risk for individuals to chance.

No, it was the drugs that broughtthem on. He died in his 50's after working in the local Ship Yard since he was 16, and ever day doing either Alcohol, or some drug (Smoked every day though). And every weekend "enjoying" himself.
What the use did, according to the doctor, was ruin his lungs, his immune system and his brain. Granted this was from all three (alcohol, drugs, and tobacco). But I'm not favouring anything.they all contributed and yet all are to blame.

And, if it makes you feel any better, I don't actually think you're a prick. I just said that for effect.
The word "prick" didn't even bother me. It was the change in attitude of your argument.

EDIT: This deservesto be put in here too.
if someone wants to risk cancer that they should be able to--as long as they don't also endanger anyone else.
But public use of drugs/alcohol/tobacco do endanger others. In many ways, second hand smoke is just one of the ways. As well as the dumb actions of the users (Drunk driving ring a bell?)
As well, private use endangeres others. What of the parents who sit in the house and smoke cigarette after cigarette while not letting their children to go outside unattended for many reasons? These children are endangered. You can't say it doesn't happen, and that parents will smoke outside, because it does happen.

Marijuana is a beautiful, beautiful plant. Just sitting quietly amongst the maturing plants can eliminate stress and tension. Their natural aroma impacts you on a deep level...this is human-nip. This is good, this is natural and this is very, very human. There's nothing to get uptight about.

If you don't like smoking it, you can prepare it any number of other ways. I like creating tinctures with the smaller stalks, tea with the outer leaves, and the smaller, inner leaves I use to bake adult brownies. The trunks I dry and make into wands for Pagan friends. Ultimately, I make use of the entire plant, and every use is different from the other. I smoke it, eat it, drink it, and venerate it in so doing.

I've shared it with friends and family, I've given it freely to those in chronic pain, and occasionally sold bits of it when I needed money - it's a tie that binds us closer together. No amount of pills, booze, or tobacco can be claimed to have the same socialising effect as good old marijuana.

I'm having some right now, and the minor, nagging headache I've had for the last half hour has instantly abated. Also, an itchy spot on my right forearm feels suddenly uninflamed. I feel slightly hungrier than I did a moment ago, but I'm not about to eat myself out of house and home. My blood sugar level feels like it's dropped a little, but I can fix that with a sip of orange juice.

Yep, I feel fine. I felt well enough before, but now I feel...fine. That the sensations I'm experiencing are vilified, Hell, that they're actually illegal, is an affront to the human condition. An assault on something that is fundamentally good, altogether benign, and eminently useful.

That's my three cents' worth. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful plants...

lol http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame71.html
and i too can attest marijuana's healing properties. earlier today i had this real pain in my eye for some reason - i tried washing it out, looking at it real hard in the mirror; couldnt find any problems - so i smoked three lovely joints with my housemate and bingo! pain all gone! man i love weed - who needs paracetamol or ibuprofin??

The word "prick" didn't even bother me. It was the change in attitude of your argument.
Well, you probably have Dobbs Town to thank for that...he was extremely convincing. I still admire your resolution never to use recreational drugs--I don't use them out of fear that I'll become addicted because of my hedonistic personality--but Dobbs Town's arguments were uncannily persuasive. Though I still say no to the shooting part...

No, it was the drugs that broughtthem on. He died in his 50's after working in the local Ship Yard since he was 16, and ever day doing either Alcohol, or some drug (Smoked every day though). And every weekend "enjoying" himself.
What the use did, according to the doctor, was ruin his lungs, his immune system and his brain. Granted this was from all three (alcohol, drugs, and tobacco). But I'm not favouring anything.they all contributed and yet all are to blame.


The word "prick" didn't even bother me. It was the change in attitude of your argument.

not to try and belittle your arguement at all man, but i would think a man whose been smoking tobacco every day for more than 30 years would find the tobacco to have been a main contributor to his health problems.
Plus, what drugs did he take? Did he only ever smoke marijuana or was he addicted to, or even just a user of 'hard drugs'? You have to distinguish between this drug, marijuana, and the hard drugs, imo.

But public use of drugs/alcohol/tobacco do endanger others. In many ways, second hand smoke is just one of the ways. As well as the dumb actions of the users (Drunk driving ring a bell?)
As well, private use endangeres others. What of the parents who sit in the house and smoke cigarette after cigarette while not letting their children to go outside unattended for many reasons? These children are endangered. You can't say it doesn't happen, and that parents will smoke outside, because it does happen.
Damnit, why do both of you have to be so reasonable?!? I am quite torn between your and Dobbs Town's arguments... I think the answer to that is to ban smoking, but not the substance itself. I would say to reënact Prohibition if it would have a chance of success, as alcohol is one of the most recklessly used drugs. If people just didn't smoke, then all of this wouldn't be a problem...

not to try and belittle your arguement at all man, but i would think a man whose been smoking tobacco every day for more than 30 years would have been a main contributor to health problems.
Plus, what drugs did he take? Did he only ever smoke marijuana or was he addicted to, or even just a user of 'hard drugs'? You have to distinguish between this drug, marijuana, and the hard drugs, imo.

A few uses of hard drugs in the 1970's. Nothing much harder then LSD too.
Appart from that, I can't tell you every drug, since he's dead and only he would know.

As for tobacco, I can see your point, unfortunatly my father (His brother), has been smoking for the same period of time (And since a younger age, because my father is younger), and has been a heavier smoker. In fact, my father rolls his own filter-less cigarettes, and has done so all I can remember. I would think by now he would be in the same condition, fortunatly he gave up drugs and alcohol 25 years ago.


On an oddly related note... my father continues to smoke, defending it by saying that it's the only thing keeping him alive now after his decades of working with asbestos.

Damnit, why do both of you have to be so reasonable?!? I am quite torn between your and Dobbs Town's arguments... I think the answer to that is to ban smoking, but not the substance itself. I would say to reënact Prohibition if it would have a chance of success, as alcohol is one of the most recklessly used drugs. If people just didn't smoke, then all of this wouldn't be a problem...

I'm sure we could agree to a compromise at something like, non-smoked, restricted use (AKA, illegal to drive when high, and other things).
Unfortunatly, all the people arguing here, or on TV, are smoking the stuff.

I think the answer to that is to ban smoking, but not the substance itself. I would say to reënact Prohibition if it would have a chance of success, as alcohol is one of the most recklessly used drugs. If people just didn't smoke, then all of this wouldn't be a problem...
how about simply banning tobacco and tobacco products? that way people could smoke weed all they wanted, but not in spliffs or blunts - only through vapourisers, (some) bongs and eating it. Ok it takes a lot of the social and fun aspects of smokin weed out of the picture, but it is more healty.

As for tobacco, I can see your point, unfortunatly my father (His brother), has been smoking for the same period of time (And since a younger age, because my father is younger), and has been a heavier smoker. In fact, my father rolls his own filter-less cigarettes, and has done so all I can remember. I would think by now he would be in the same condition, fortunatly he gave up drugs and alcohol 25 years ago.
Well, some people can smoke their entire lives, from their first decade 'til they die at 80 or 90, and have very little detrimental effect. It really all depends on the person, though I wouldn't just assume that I was one of the resitant people by default if anyone is considering smoking just because there's a chance of that.

Personally, I can't stand smoke because I have bad allergies and very sensitive lungs but there are so many people whom I care about whom smoke, that I keep that to myself. Personally, I can suggest something to them but in the end, they make the decision and thats the way it is.

No, I believe they should be shot. And I brought it in as evidence to my strong belief against drugs.
I brought that up as reasoning against the legalization.
In the end, if it's illegal, I don't care how, but I'll be happy about the subject.
But if I have to take care of it myself, meaning if I'm forced to be directly exposed to it, I'm more likely to take such drastic measures then anything.


My uncle used to be so smart the public school told his parents they needed to take him out and put him in a private school because the public school could not handle his intelligence. Unfortunately they didn't have the money. My uncle started using drugs, and didn't stop, (for any long period of time) until he was hospitalized. He died from pneumonia, and other health problems, probably brought on by the drugs and made worse when he got in a car accident while high. That was the reason he was in the hospital in the first place. Drugs made him an incoherent rambling pesk. Drugs ruined whatever bright future he may have had. Not to mention the weeks after the accident he spent in the hospital wishing the Lord would take him so he wouldn't have to suffer anymore. Yet, IMO this was his choice. I don't believe hard drugs should be made legal, but marijuana should. It was drugs like heroin that ruined my uncle’s life, not marijuana. My other uncle couldn't break his heroin addiction, and hung himself. I wrote a lot more here than I meant to, but the point is drugs affected my family significantly also, but not *harmless* drugs like marijuana. Think things through based on facts, and not emotion responses to things that happened to you in your life.

A few uses of hard drugs in the 1970's. Nothing much harder then LSD too.
Appart from that, I can't tell you every drug, since he's dead and only he would know.

As for tobacco, I can see your point, unfortunatly my father (His brother), has been smoking for the same period of time (And since a younger age, because my father is younger), and has been a heavier smoker. In fact, my father rolls his own filter-less cigarettes, and has done so all I can remember. I would think by now he would be in the same condition, fortunatly he gave up drugs and alcohol 25 years ago.


On an oddly related note... my father continues to smoke, defending it by saying that it's the only thing keeping him alive now after his decades of working with asbestos.
well i don't know the specifics of your family, and i dont have all the answers. you know where i stand on this - maybe drugs did kill him, but a) i would argue not marijuana, and b) as a whole on a sociological level, marijuana use itself leads to relatively few health problems that are not attributed to smoking cigarettes anyay.

I'm sure we could agree to a compromise at something like, non-smoked, restricted use (AKA, illegal to drive when high, and other things).
I wish that could be true, that's what I would really like, but people who smoke it probably won't stop (I think, if nothing else, there's a social aspect to it), and just as drunk driving is illegal, and people drive intoxicated, people will drive while high.

Unfortunatly, all the people arguing here, or on TV, are smoking the stuff.
Well, as I stated earlier, I've never used any illegal drug in my life. I had about a glass of wine last Thanksgiving, and that was out of curiousity as to what the intoxicating effects of alcohol really are (which I decided I didn't like). There are plenty of people at my school who smoke daily, but I haven't.

I don't believe hard drugs should be made legal, but marijuana should. ...the point is drugs affected my family significantly also, but not *harmless* drugs like marijuana.
ta-daa my point exactly.
i think im getting tired and rambling somewhat. sorry.

Without being too specific, I would like to point out this "Harmless" idea behind marijuana.
Simply that, Opium was "harmless" once, and so was alcohol, tobacco, lead, and the list goes on.

No, I believe they should be shot. And I brought it in as evidence to my strong belief against drugs.
I brought that up as reasoning against the legalization.
In the end, if it's illegal, I don't care how, but I'll be happy about the subject.
But if I have to take care of it myself, meaning if I'm forced to be directly exposed to it, I'm more likely to take such drastic measures then anything.

I think instead of stopping all together, I'll just ignore stupidity and respond to those with intellegence.

I can understand your bitterness, but the question is should everybody be prohibited or punished just because some people can't use things responsibly.

Let me give an example: My mother is diabetic. She wasn't born with the disease (as some are), she acquired through poor dietary habits. She has suffered serious complications from the disease and been hospitalized several times. It is going to kill her.The most important thing for a diabetic to do is to control their diet. When it comes to regular food she can do this. However she loves candy, cake, icecream, pie - anytype of really sugary stuff. Now sweets are no more necessary for life than recreational drugs - both just add enjoyment or enjoyment and pain depending on the circumstances. Should sweets be outlawed because my mother and lots of other people can't control themselves and hurt themselves with them?

Without being too specific, I would like to point out this "Harmless" idea behind marijuana.
Simply that, Opium was "harmless" once, and so was alcohol, tobacco, lead, and the list goes on.

Innocent until proven guilty. :)
Honestly though, the only (proven) detrimental effects are short term memory loss and cancer, if smoked.

That depends, when most people say medical marijuana they mean letting someone smoke it in public, where I have to be (Going to school or work for instance.) then I say last resort only. If they mean in a private home, alone or in the presence of trained medical personell and/or other medical users, but not in the presence of minors or unconsenting adults, then sure.

But still, any use but that, I strongly disagree with. And easily group it with my smoking idea. "All smokers should be given the option to quit (With overnment help of course) or be shot dead on the spot".
Simmilar plans involving alcohol. And Caffine makes no difference to taste of things like coffee or pop that it's in, so why is it there? Get rid of it.

See my point? I'm strongly opposed to it all. Me admitting a medical use for it is a big thing, because marijuana I particularly hate the most.

Should we outlaw use of all medicines in public? I guess you'd shoot the people who use the Actique lollipops in public for their chronic pain, too.

I can understand your bitterness, but the question is should everybody be prohibited or punished just because some people can't use things responsibly.

Let me give an example: My mother is diabetic. She wasn't born with the disease (as some are), she acquired through poor dietary habits. She has suffered serious complications from the disease and been hospitalized several times. It is going to kill her.The most important thing for a diabetic to do is to control their diet. When it comes to regular food she can do this. However she loves candy, cake, icecream, pie - anytype of really sugary stuff. Now sweets are no more necessary for life than recreational drugs - both just add enjoyment or enjoyment and pain depending on the circumstances. Should sweets be outlawed because my mother and lots of other people can't control themselves and hurt themselves with them?

You get into a nice idea there. But how do you define "sweets"? All food has sugar in it, and if your mother is a diabetic (Sorry for her too, that disease is a pain) then she has to take shots ever day right? Or is it not a serious form of diabetes (Like my grand mother has, which only requires the odd pill before sweets)?
As I said, unfortunatly, all food is problematic for diabetics, in fact we NEED simple carbohydrates to live, we can't live on just complex carbohydrates. Likewise we can't just live on simple ones.
Of course marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco are not needed to live.

Dostanuot, though I sympathise with the loss of your uncle, the drugs did not cause his disease. His own lack of willpower was ultimately his downfall. Unless he consistently abused physically addictive drugs (of which there are few) there can be no blame placed on the substances themselves. This is much like those individuals who believe that guns, not people, kill people. Drugs cannot think. They do not have malicious intent.
Likewise, I do not understand why you believe, simply due to your painful background, why drug users of all stripes (excluding patients) deserve to be shot. That is similar to an individual proclaiming he wants to kill all fat people because everyone in his family was fat and a family member of his died due to obesity-related complications. Does this sound rational? All you have to do is replace every instance of "fat" in my example with "drug-using" and replace "obesity" with "drug", and you receive the same irrationality.
I would appreciate some clarification on these issues.

Innocent until proven guilty. :)
Honestly though, the only (proven) detrimental effects are short term memory loss and cancer, if smoked.

Lol, nice one.
But really, does it change wether or not it's harmless. Will someone only die from being decapitated because we think that's what happens?

Without being too specific, I would like to point out this "Harmless" idea behind marijuana.
Simply that, Opium was "harmless" once, and so was alcohol, tobacco, lead, and the list goes on.
there has been much indipendent scientific research into the dangers of smoking pot. Most of the reports come to the conclusion that it is a harmful drug, highly carcinogenic, but far less harmful than even alcochol or tobacco. There was even a federally comissioned study in the US during the 1970s that insisted that marijuana should be legalised. it was swept under the carpet :(

I can understand your bitterness, but the question is should everybody be prohibited or punished just because some people can't use things responsibly.

Let me give an example: My mother is diabetic. She wasn't born with the disease (as some are), she acquired through poor dietary habits. She has suffered serious complications from the disease and been hospitalized several times. It is going to kill her.The most important thing for a diabetic to do is to control their diet. When it comes to regular food she can do this. However she loves candy, cake, icecream, pie - anytype of really sugary stuff. Now sweets are no more necessary for life than recreational drugs - both just add enjoyment or enjoyment and pain depending on the circumstances. Should sweets be outlawed because my mother and lots of other people can't control themselves and hurt themselves with them?
thats what it boils down to, individual examples aside. And perhaps this is the difference in opinion between myself (and the rest) and Dostanuot Loj (and others) - I believe that, fundamentally, marijuana is harmless or even beneficiary enough to allow people to make up their own minds - that people can, and are, responsible with their use of marijuana. however it would seem that Dostanuot Loj - sorry for putting words in your mouth - believes that people are irresponcible enough not to be trusted with even the harmless herb, and also with socially accepted, but still majorly harmful, alcohol and tobacco. is that about it?

Without being too specific, I would like to point out this "Harmless" idea behind marijuana.
Simply that, Opium was "harmless" once, and so was alcohol, tobacco, lead, and the list goes on.Innocent until proven guilty. :)
Honestly though, the only detrimental effects are short term memory loss and cancer, if smoked.
I think that is a very argument, Dostanuot Loj, because many times, such as with chemical pesticides, we say they're safe in certain ways in a controlled lab situation, but in the wild there turn out to be complications going up the food chain and interactions of different chemicals. So often the negative effects are not known until the problem surfaces. However, I believe there has been sufficient testing on the deleterious effects of marijuana. That is what was thought before with pesiticides, and currently with genetic engineering, so there could be very...undesirable consequences of marijuana use that we are currently unaware of. However, Dobbs Town did bring up the point that it's been used since at least the first days of ceramics, and evolved very near to the area humans did (I believe that marijuana evolved around the Middle East, though I could remember wrong, and humans developed in Africa). So I assume that it is fairly safe, but again, that is merely conjecture.

I didnt mean anyone in particular - I just joined this thread. I was referring to a general point of view that you usually get in these drug-debates. It was not a flame.
I sypathise for the loss of your uncle, however was it the drugs, tobacco and alcohol that caused the medical problems, or did they simply exasperate a pre-existing condition?
Plus, if the former, not everybody who uses drugs overdoes the drugs - except of course the 'hard drugs' like Heroin - highly addictive ones - that I would argue should always remain illegal. On the topic of this thread, pot smokers do not overdo their use of the drug, and even if they did this would never cause any medical problems except that of cancer (and short term memory loss but you can forget about that ;) ). I believe that cancer is an acceptable risk for individuals to chance.

Nicotene is more addictive than heroin. Far more addictive. Caffiene is more addictive than heroin. Xanax, valium, and the benzos are more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, not everyone who uses heroin overdoes it. Many use it in a responsible, controlled way. And even for those who do get addicted, other than the health problems caused by the fact that the drug is illegal (unsanitary cuts, having to reuse needles because of idiotic laws, and lack of nutrition because of the cost of the drug) heroin use has fewer delitorious effects on the human body than any other recreational drug, other than marijuana (if the marijuana is not used in a way that can lead to lung cancer).

Sorry for ranting again. But I don't know why some people buy only into certain anti-drug propaganda. It really bothers me. I know meth heads who say "at least it is not heroin" when the truth is that meth is extremely more dangerous than heroin.

But really, does it change wether or not it's harmless. Will someone only die from being decapitated because we think that's what happens?

I don't understand your logic. If you can show me an example of a health related problem caused by marijuana (save the 2 I mentioned) then you would have a case against marijuana. I don't think comparing it to someone being decapitated makes much sense. It would defy all logic to think that there was something besides getting their head chopped off as the cause of death.

Dostanuot, though I sympathise with the loss of your uncle, the drugs did not cause his disease. His own lack of willpower was ultimately his downfall. Unless he consistently abused physically addictive drugs (of which there are few) there can be no blame placed on the substances themselves. This is much like those individuals who believe that guns, not people, kill people. Drugs cannot think. They do not have malicious intent.
Likewise, I do not understand why you believe, simply due to your painful background, why drug users of all stripes (excluding patients) deserve to be shot. That is similar to an individual proclaiming he wants to kill all fat people because everyone in his family was fat and a family member of his died due to obesity-related complications. Does this sound rational? All you have to do is replace every instance of "fat" in my example with "drug-using" and replace "obesity" with "drug", and you receive the same irrationality.
I would appreciate some clarification on these issues.


Again, I am slightly misunderstood.
I honestly don't care that my uncle died. My opnions are based on observatios Ihave made over my lifetime, and my belief in those being shot comes directly from my personality.
I will bring this, un-related, part in to clarify.
I believe everyone should be killed, humanity sucks, we've runied our home, and argue over the stupidest things, or for no reason. We believe in flawed and bigoted ideologies. And in general, everyone, from my enemies, to my fiance, to me, must be killed. Failing that I'd be happy with a global trench-based war of attrition, like WW1 but on a larger scale.
If you wish to refute that, then please bring it to another topic. I'd be more the happy to debate there, or Telegram me.

I don't understand your logic. If you can show me an example of a health related problem caused by marijuana (save the 2 I mentioned) then you would have a case against marijuana. I don't think comparing it to someone being decapitated makes much sense. It would defy all logic to think that there was something besides getting their head chopped off as the cause of death.

My logic was that just because we don't know of them now, does that mean there are none?
And the example I gave, was meant to point out that thinking something does not make it true.

I believe everyone should be killed, humanity sucks, we've runied our home, and argue over the stupidest things, or for no reason. We believe in flawed and bigoted ideologies. And in general, everyone, from my enemies, to my fiance, to me, must be killed. Failing that I'd be happy with a global trench-based war of attrition, like WW1 but on a larger scale.
If you wish to refute that, then please bring it to another topic. I'd be more the happy to debate there, or Telegram me.

Humanity does suck. Using that belief in debate against/for marijuana is not valid though, because there is not proof, it’s your belief. Good luck proving to (for example, lets say aliens) that humanity is fundamentally flawed. (Dig the alliteration.) Mainly though, the reason I complain is because this has nothing to do with marijuana.


My logic was that just because we don't know of them now, does that mean there are none?
And the example I gave, was meant to point out that thinking something does not make it true.

I agree, there could be unknown consequences. I see the chances low though, especially as a result of all the studies. I believe if there were any they would have showed themselves by now.

Nicotene is more addictive than heroin. Far more addictive. Caffiene is more addictive than heroin. Xanax, valium, and the benzos are more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, not everyone who uses heroin overdoes it. Many use it in a responsible, controlled way. And even for those who do get addicted, other than the health problems caused by the fact that the drug is illegal (unsanitary cuts, having to reuse needles because of idiotic laws, and lack of nutrition because of the cost of the drug) heroin use has fewer delitorious effects on the human body than any other recreational drug, other than marijuana (if the marijuana is not used in a way that can lead to lung cancer).

Sorry for ranting again. But I don't know why some people buy only into certain anti-drug propaganda. It really bothers me. I know meth heads who say "at least it is not heroin" when the truth is that meth is extremely more dangerous than heroin.
ah i was kinda using heroin as a buzz-word for all bad drugs. sorry. i am now officially tired.
The fact that many of the health and sociological problems caused by Herioin's being illegal is what stimulates me into thinking that instead of punishment, addicts of any drug should be helped in getting off the drug.

You get into a nice idea there. But how do you define "sweets"? All food has sugar in it, and if your mother is a diabetic (Sorry for her too, that disease is a pain) then she has to take shots ever day right? Or is it not a serious form of diabetes (Like my grand mother has, which only requires the odd pill before sweets)?
As I said, unfortunatly, all food is problematic for diabetics, in fact we NEED simple carbohydrates to live, we can't live on just complex carbohydrates. Likewise we can't just live on simple ones.
Of course marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco are not needed to live.

Shots everyday. Sometimes twice a day when she it gets too out of control. I know foods have sugars in them. By sweets I mean those things which have refined sugar as a main or primary ingredient - near zero nutritional value. She tends to have no problem limiting things like bread, pasta, rice. Her main problem is candy bars. Followed closely be every type of dessert.
CANDY BARS are not needed to live. They cause tooth decay, hyperactivity in children, etc etc.

But hardly anyone says candy bars should be illegal because some people abuse them. Even the idea sounds kind of silly. But the truth is that some people would be better off if candy bars and refined sugar products weren't available.

The more our society considers something to be 'immoral' based on its Judeo-Christian values the more we are likely to blame the substance, rather than the substances misuse for problems.

The more our society considers something to be 'immoral' based on its Judeo-Christian values the more we are likely to blame the substance, rather than the substances misuse for problems.
education. if people were educated properly, from a young age, as to the effects of these controversial drugs (not just told that all drugs are bad and dont ask any questions) and actually taught about their health (re diet), then perhaps it would be possible to live in some kind of dreamworld, where all drugs are legal and its your own decision to use them? If everybody knew the full risks when considering using a drug, especially hard drugs, then they may think twice about taking it.

that isnt necessarily my opinion btw, im just being somthing of a devils advocate :D (or similar anyway)
well, its been a good evening debating this shit with you gents, but i now need my beauty sleep :rolleyes:

I believe everyone should be killed, humanity sucks, we've runied our home, and argue over the stupidest things, or for no reason. We believe in flawed and bigoted ideologies. And in general, everyone, from my enemies, to my fiance, to me, must be killed. Failing that I'd be happy with a global trench-based war of attrition, like WW1 but on a larger scale.
If you wish to refute that, then please bring it to another topic.
I'm sorry for bringing this slightly off-topic, but have you seen any psycologists or psychiatrists? I used to think that way too, but am much happier now that pharmacology, and perhaps a little therapy, has helped me. The part I agree most on, by the by, is that we've ruined our home. It isn't ruined yet, but we're ruining it and don't show many signs of slowing down. I'm afraid for life, of what irreversible chemical or radioactive damage we might do. But I digress. I think you should look into the medicinal, prescribed drugs referred to earlier, and if you have, then perhaps talk to your psychiatrist if you have one. They aren't as mind-altering or zombifying as they are typically portrayed as. I really don't know you, so I can't say really what the problem is or if there is actually a real problem at all, but no-one should have to live like that if he or she doesn't have to.

Shots everyday. Sometimes twice a day when she it gets too out of control. I know foods have sugars in them. By sweets I mean those things which have refined sugar as a main or primary ingredient - near zero nutritional value. She tends to have no problem limiting things like bread, pasta, rice. Her main problem is candy bars. Followed closely be every type of dessert.
CANDY BARS are not needed to live. They cause tooth decay, hyperactivity in children, etc etc.

But hardly anyone says candy bars should be illegal because some people abuse them. Even the idea sounds kind of silly. But the truth is that some people would be better off if candy bars and refined sugar products weren't available.

The more our society considers something to be 'immoral' based on its Judeo-Christian values the more we are likely to blame the substance, rather than the substances misuse for problems.


But if the substance is taken away, what is there left to abuse?
And Candybars started with a "Nutritional" intent, they were the "super-food" put in military survival packs, they give energy (which we need) quickly. But in no way are we able to use this all the time.
Processed sugar is a simple carbohydrate, and we need those to live just as we need the complex ones (Like in pasta).
Again, unfortunatly, anyone who does any form of quick (Sudden starting) physical activity requires these simple carbohydrates.
You know what they say, eat in moderation. If you stop eating you die, notif you stop drugs. Hence my complaint about your analogy (Well worded though).

Mainly though, the reason I complain is because this has nothing to do with marijuana.
Hence why I said refute it elsewhere, and that it was an explination of my "shoot them" ideology. Hopefully (but not likely) keeping people from jumping to other conclusions.

ah i was kinda using heroin as a buzz-word for all bad drugs. sorry. i am now officially tired.
The fact that many of the health and sociological problems caused by Herioin's being illegal is what stimulates me into thinking that instead of punishment, addicts of any drug should be helped in getting off the drug.

Ah. That's different. The marijuana or marijuana and 'shrooms type crowds are one thing. But there have been so many times I have heard people say "all drugs but heroin should be legal" and that really gets to me. I don't understand how people who are fighting against propaganda can have bought so heavily into the anti-opiate propaganda that they can be against heroin but pro things like meth. It is just ... illogical.

And Candybars started with a "Nutritional" intent, they were the "super-food" put in military survival packs, they give energy (which we need) quickly.
Which, incidently, raises one's blood sugar for a period of time, then drops it lower than before. I've never heard that candy bars began as an "energy bar" in the military, but I'll take your word for it. Also, is it sucrose that is most commonly used in candy as a sweetener, or is it fructose? I think it's the former, but can't quite remember.

But if the substance is taken away, what is there left to abuse?
And Candybars started with a "Nutritional" intent, they were the "super-food" put in military survival packs, they give energy (which we need) quickly. But in no way are we able to use this all the time.
Processed sugar is a simple carbohydrate, and we need those to live just as we need the complex ones (Like in pasta).
Again, unfortunatly, anyone who does any form of quick (Sudden starting) physical activity requires these simple carbohydrates.
You know what they say, eat in moderation. If you stop eating you die, notif you stop drugs. Hence my complaint about your analogy (Well worded though).


Hence why I said refute it elsewhere, and that it was an explination of my "shoot them" ideology. Hopefully (but not likely) keeping people from jumping to other conclusions.

No one dies without candy bars.

Maybe they can be restricted by prescription to athletes and such who need them. People lived just fine before refined sugar products were availabe, however. Not eating and not eating refined sugar are two different things. Candy bars were made for one purpose, made it into the general public and are now misused. Some scientists even claim that simple sugars are addictive when misused - hence the trouble people have controlling their sweet tooth even when it means it endangers their life.


As for things developed for limited use:
Heroin was developed as a pain killer in war- takes half as much as morphine. Opiates were used to treat depression before the government cracked down on doctors who handed them out. For 50+ years they were taken out of the area of psychiatric research, and are just now making their way back in (the brain naturally produces MORPHINE, not a morphine like substance, actual real morphine, and a group of scientist have found that some people who are resistant to treatment with SSRI's have lower than average amounts). The majority of people who become opiate addicts have clinical depression and had it prior to drug use (that is what turns many people to drug use). Meth was developed to help soldiers stay awake and inprove concentration. ADHD medicines are similar to meth.

It has everything to do with your marijuana is harmful and destroys the world so people should be shot idealogy. 'Cause drugs aren't the only bad thing or the worst thing in the world by far.

Which, incidently, raises one's blood sugar for a period of time, then drops it lower than before. I've never heard that candy bars began as an "energy bar" in the military, but I'll take your word for it. Also, is it sucrose that is most commonly used in candy as a sweetener, or is it fructose? I think it's the former, but can't quite remember.

Sucrose. Fructose is the form of sugar found in fruits.

Meth was developed to help soldiers stay awake and inprove concentration. ADHD medicines are similar to meth.
What exactly is meth? I'm pretty sure they're methamphetamines, but what's so bad about them? I used to take an amphetamine for ADD (they use it for both ADD and AD/HD), and the only detrimental effects were decreased appetite and lower levels of emotion. But neither were permenent, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Edit:
Sucrose. Fructose is the form of sugar found in fruits.
Ok, thanks. It's been too long since I've gone over organic chemistry...

Let me give you a few reasons why I believe marijuana should be FULLY legalized.

Have you ever had a gun pulled on you when buying a pack of cigerettes?

-Marijuana has consistantly proven to be no more harmful then cigerettes, and yet due to the current laws in the U.S. harmless buyers of marijuana are forced to deal with "shady" criminals who are already living outside the law. If a casual smoker could simply walk into a gas station and purchase a pack of marijuana cigerettes the "criminal factor" would be completely removed from the situation.

Would you call the cops if someone ripped you off for a bag?

-Many of the violent crimes surrounding drugs occcur when a "deal goes bad." When someone is buying marijuana and is ripped off there is nothing they can do about it and feel they need to take justice into their own hands. Again, by legalizing marijuana you are removing another "criminal factor."

Should the government have the right to tell you what is "too bad?"

-The government allows alchohol and ciggerettes to be sold freely on the market (although they do tax the hell out of them), yet they say marajuana is "too bad" to be allowed. I have not seen one piece of evidance that would lead me to believe that if I can drink a beer and smoke a cig I shouldn't be able to smoke a joint. It is hypocritical for our government to not only allow some recreational drugs to exist, but recieve support from their companies.

Do you want some random guy in a basement selling your kid a bag of basil sprayed with hair spray?

-Believe it or not but a lot of people aren't that smart. They buy things without looking at them or just don't know any better. When you buy any drug from a person you don't know (and even some you do) you have no idea what you are getting. Legalizing things makes them easier to regulate, it's a fact.

Do you really think your kids can't get it if they want it?

-A lot of people think that keeping marijuana illegal keeps it out of reach of their children. Anyone who has been to high school in the last 10 years (or in the 60's/70's) knows that it's easier to buy weed at school than beer. It is completely naive of anyone to think that the opportunity to buy something is negated by making it illegal.

Note: I do think it is a bad thing for kids to smoke marijuana.

Should a person's entire life be scarred by one bad decision?

-Smoking a joint does not ruin your life, you are the same person afterwards. Not everyone who once smoked does now, and yet simply having a drug conviction on your record can bar you from a lot of jobs/opportunities. Because of the "coolness" surrounded by illegal drugs a lot of kids feel the need to experiment with them, this does not mean they will smoke forever. By making a felony marijuana charge as bad as an underage ciggerette smoking charge a lot of people will be saved a much greater hassle in their future for one bad decision they made in their past.

And finally (although I could go on), has keeping it illegal thus far worked?

-Obviously no, our country is built on the belief of supply and demand, and if enough people demand something someone will supply it. There has never been a case of full prohibition ever working, and yet our government filters billions into the "war on drugs." By creating a real market they will not only stop pointless spending, they will make money. Taxing not only buyers of the drug, but the income of the thousands and thousands of jobs the new industry would create would add greatly to the money our government always seems to need. Not only that but industrial hemp is one of the most versatle renewable resources in the world, yet under current U.S. laws no experimenting can be done to utilize it.

Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors, I'm a little high. (Just kidding, just typing fast.)

What exactly is meth? I'm pretty sure they're methamphetamines, but what's so bad about them? I used to take an amphetamine for ADD (they use it for both ADD and AD/HD), and the only detrimental effects were decreased appetite and lower levels of emotion. But neither were permenent, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Edit:

Ok, thanks. It's been too long since I've gone over organic chemistry...

Yes, methamphetamines. On the street usually crystal methamphetamine. It is very similar to ADD AD/HD medications, but stronger. First of all it can stress the heart - overdose leads to heartattack (isn't this something that has to be moniterd with ADD med, and one of the problems that is listed as a possible rare side effect - meth does it to a much larger degree). There are severe appetitie supression problems. Meth addicts are often indistinguishable from aneorexics. People have been known to stay awake for over 30 days at a time on meth. 2-3 days of sleeplessness is the average price for a night of meth use. It causes dopamine levels to soar, so sometimes (wih large doses) it can lead to the same type of paranoia and hallucinations that high levels of cocaine use can lead to. Long term use can lead to Parkinsons disease (debated somewhat if this is just mice or humans. but the infamous now debunked report about ecstasy "eating holes in the brain" was based on an accident where the researcher used meth instead of e.)

I wouldn't be worried about having taken ADD meds leading to problems. I stated all the reasons (that I could remember) that the anti-drug sites give against meth as well as personal observation. All of the above is "the worst possibles" not necesarilly the usual

There arent effects for marijuana users in the short term, or without large usage. Your sexual response WILL be effected if you use the drug over a large period of time and I wont listen to anything said to the contrary. If this point is pressed, Ill bring out the evidence.

Besides, it is psychologically addictive. I used it in college for a little bit (sadly); and had a hard time telling myself that it was time to quit for good. All of my friends agreed and when we quit (3 or so month's later) we felt much, much better than when we were users.

I DO believe it should be legalized, but have serious reservations about the whole thing. It some cases, its use should be severely punished; like with driving, pregnancy, and intelligent thought (a joke) involved.

And actually.. heroin is highly, highly refined morphine that is about 100 times stronger than morphine is not 2, which is why the effect is so different and immediately addicting. Morphine is refined opium which is about 3x its strength.

Heroin is a highly dangerous drug. Im not going to argue about that.

I wouldn't be worried about having taken ADD meds leading to problems. I stated all the reasons (that I could remember) that the anti-drug sites give against meth as well as personal observation. All of the above is "the worst possibles" not necesarilly the usual
Oh, yes. I'm not worried about any problems from when I took amphetamine. My psychiatrist prescribed it, and it was determined to not do enough good for me in the long-term anyways. I was just wondering what could happen if amphetamies or methamphetamines are abused.

Hi Gnostikos, Adyndril...how's tricks?

And actually.. heroin is highly, highly refined morphine that is about 100 times stronger than morphine is not 2, which is why the effect is so different and immediately addicting. Morphine is refined opium which is about 3x its strength.

Heroin is a highly dangerous drug. Im not going to argue about that.

Bullshit.

I think you are talking about China White - it gets called "heroin" on the street sometimes (but they will usually say white cause it sells for a lot more) but what it really is is fentanyl - and yeah, it can be highly dangerous because it is really easy to mess up when synthesizing. It can get up to over a 1000X more potent than morphine - that kind is used for elephant tranqs.

Heroin is 2-3X stronger than morphine depending on what method of consumption is used. It is more "immediate acting" only if injected. The reason is that it is more lipid soluable and so crosses into the brain faster. In under 5 minutes, heroin is converted by the body into morphine.

What the hell. It's a marijuana thread, so I gotta throw in a post or two.

First - visit my nation and you'll (usually) see my feelings about legalization. (...renowned for it's absence of drug laws.). Or, yes, yes, no.

I can't say I'm for easy access to ALL drugs, but marijuana is so benign I'm just continuously amazed it's still illegal, regardless of what some may think/post.

I've stated the reasons, IMO and that of others, that pot is still criminalized in other threads so I'm not going to do it again in this one. Want to know more? TG me.

By the way, having been a long time daily smoker I am not using at this time and haven't for several months now. Indeed, for the last couple of years I've only been the sporadic smoker. Reasons: A)cost. generally the only people I've been able to find that might help me locate a bag have been in the elite class of smokers who shell out a hundred a quarter. Too rich for my blood especially when out of work due to downturn in the economy. B)Testing - while looking for work one must generally be willing to submit to drug tests as a part of pre-employment screening even for crap-ass, low wage jobs that you should be able to smoke at or at least after just to forget what a crap job you've landed. C)I'm not an addict. I can smoke or not as I wish. I just generally prefer to. It makes me feel good (go ahead and shoot me now, but you better make it good or I'll shoot you back you intolerant motherfu**er! - sorry for flame, but come on!) and helps relieve tension better than any other substance, legal or not, I've ever taken with fewer side effects. Plus, it helps me sleep better. And D) I just don't have the connections I've had at other earlier times in my life. The connections I have made in the last few years that can find reasonably priced weed usually wind up moving away or getting busted/hassled by the cops, poor bastards.

This being said, there are lots of people who are effected in a lot of different ways by ALL substances. Some drunks are mean, some sad, some funny, some just fall asleep. Same with pot, although I've never met someone who only smoked pot (and cigarettes) that was mean or violent. But the point I try to make here is that some people really shouldn't use drugs. If you recognize this in yourself take some responsibility and don't. Kudos to Gnostikos for having the huevos to be our shining example of this! Open minded and self-responsible. No preaching! Love ya, man! Some people shouldn't drink coffee. And most people shouldn't have their cell phones glued to their freaking ear! Now those people should be shot!

Now for my funny story! If you've made it this far, you deserve one. Have a seat, kids, and let Uncle Matalatataka tell you a tale from long ago...

Once upon a time in the land of the Lone Star (Texas, y'all), I was driving through Johnson City on my way to Austin where I was moving to start a new life in a new town with new adventures awaiting. Now, Johnson City isn't as conservative a stronghold as some parts of Texas, but it is by no means as liberal as Santa Fe, New Mexico (where I was moving from). So when my car suddenly died and I coasted to a stop at a Fina station on the edge of town, I was pretty bummed out.

I got out, kicked my side panel, looked at the engine to see if I could find anything obviously wrong, and went inside to get something to drink when I couldn't. Upon entering, a local law enforcement officer who had been observing me from inside asked if everything was okay.

"I dunno. It just died."

"Come on, let's go take a look," he said.

He looked around a bit with his flashlight and told me to start it up.

"TURN IT OFF!" he shouted a second or two later.

"Your timing belt is shot. You're stuck here over night, son. Come on back in. I'll buy ya a cup of coffee."

We went back inside and struck up a conversation about What Austin was like, what there was to do in and around Austin, where I'd come from, chit chat and small talk. Being a fairly good judge of character I eventually realized I could ask the following question without fears of being hassled or having my car searched.

"So, I'm curious. What kind of problems do you folks have with narcotics around here?

He sat back and thought about it for a moment before responding.

"Two biggest problems we got out here have gotta be with alcohol and methamphetamine."

"Really? Well, what about marijuana?" I asked cautiously.

He smiled a big smile and said, " ah, hell son. Someone smokes a little weed all they do is watch tv, get hungry and doze off. Ain't no problem there, especially for a cop. I'd rather deal with a pot head than a drunk any time. Except, I never seem to really have to deal with potheads. Go figure."

The moral of the story? Morals? We don't need no stinking morals! Just a fat sack and good friends to share it with. :D

generally the only people I've been able to find that might help me locate a bag have been in the elite class of smokers who shell out a hundred a quarter.
:eek:

oh wait, thats in dollars right?
thats only about 50 quid - thats about what i pay :( :p

oh wait, thats in dollars right?
thats only about 50 quid - thats about what i pay :( :p


I just wish it was squid. Then I'd be set!

Again, I am slightly misunderstood.
I honestly don't care that my uncle died. My opnions are based on observatios Ihave made over my lifetime, and my belief in those being shot comes directly from my personality.
I will bring this, un-related, part in to clarify.
I believe everyone should be killed, humanity sucks, we've runied our home, and argue over the stupidest things, or for no reason. We believe in flawed and bigoted ideologies. And in general, everyone, from my enemies, to my fiance, to me, must be killed. Failing that I'd be happy with a global trench-based war of attrition, like WW1 but on a larger scale.
If you wish to refute that, then please bring it to another topic. I'd be more the happy to debate there, or Telegram me.


You've missed an important point: Your uncle chose to do those things, and most likely understood the consequences for those actions. Freedom means being able to do as you want, as long as you don't cause harm to others in the process, and accepting the responsibilty for the outcomes of your decisions. If I choose to sit down with a bong and a bag full of donuts, I have to accept that I may get fatter and won't want to do anything the rest of the day. But it is my choice, and that choice doesn't harm anyone but me.

I, personally, am very sorry to hear how unhappy you are. I am also very sorry to hear how easily you would dispatch humanity, when people are capable of so much love, compassion and beauty. One war invariably leads to another war, and war sucks.

If you really want to lead a regimented, drug free, and deadly life, (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) try your local US Marine Corp recruiting office.

You've missed an important point: Your uncle chose to do those things, and most likely understood the consequences for those actions. Freedom means being able to do as you want, as long as you don't cause harm to others in the process, and accepting the responsibilty for the outcomes of your decisions. If I choose to sit down with a bong and a bag full of donuts, I have to accept that I may get fatter and won't want to do anything the rest of the day. But it is my choice, and that choice doesn't harm anyone but me.

I, personally, am very sorry to hear how unhappy you are. I am also very sorry to hear how easily you would dispatch humanity, when people are capable of so much love, compassion and beauty. One war invariably leads to another war, and war sucks.

If you really want to lead a regimented, drug free, and deadly life, (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) try your local US Marine Corp recruiting office.


To answer in order..
Firstly, no he didn;t know what he was getting into when he was addicted. I'm sure no one here is going to dissagree that in the 1960's and 1970's drugs, tobacco, and alcohol were allclaimed to have no dangers at all (Except "social" dangers in abuse stuff from "rare" alcohol related incidents. In the definition of the time). So my uncle had no idea what he was getting into, and did not know the consequences.
As for harm anyone. I've said this many times, and an earlier post of mine I suggest you look up is much more detailed. But smoking anything leads to second hand smoke, and humans are not designed to breathe in smoke. Thus smoke hars us, otherwise firefighters would not have to wear respiorators.
Finnally, regarding the US Marines. I did consider them at one point, however the thing that got me was, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian, I'm sure you just happened to miss that right under my name on my post.

i totally dig wat silent truth was arguing

i did my term paper for law class on the legalisation of marijuana...lemme tell u, the research was amazing.

i'm canadian, so they've just recently relaxed the pot laws and there's a bill on the table to fully legalise it. a survey out last month shows that over 60% of youth who smoke (ages 16-24), smoke pot. why not just make it legal? we need our jails for criminals who actually harm or endanger society, not ppl who just wanna sit back and relax.

there have been NO (ZERO) known cases of death by od-ing on marijuana, it has no physically addictive properties, it doesnt cause violent (raise tempers or watever, like alcohol does), and is totally good as medicine and as a relaxer. yes, mj DOES have a FEW "detrimental" effects, if u can call them that...they're so insignificant and temporary, especially ludicrous when compared to the effects of alcohol and tobacco.

there is a concern that if marijiuana is made legal, the "gateway" or "stepping-stone" theories will come into effect, meaning that those that try pot will go on to try harder, more dangerous drugs. a reasonable concern. but we can look at the examples of Amsterdam and Australia, where marijuana has been legalised. In both these places, initial marijuana use rose, then dropped a bit and steadied. In both these places, use of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth,) DROPPED DRAMATICALLY.

so if u look at the big picture, legalising marijuana is a good thing for society. It'll lessen hard/addictive drug use, it'll de-clog jails, and it'll make ppl more friendly and peaceful, less aggressive. all round good stuff. :)


*peace out*

To answer in order..
Firstly, no he didn;t know what he was getting into when he was addicted. I'm sure no one here is going to dissagree that in the 1960's and 1970's drugs, tobacco, and alcohol were allclaimed to have no dangers at all (Except "social" dangers in abuse stuff from "rare" alcohol related incidents. In the definition of the time). So my uncle had no idea what he was getting into, and did not know the consequences.
As for harm anyone. I've said this many times, and an earlier post of mine I suggest you look up is much more detailed. But smoking anything leads to second hand smoke, and humans are not designed to breathe in smoke. Thus smoke hars us, otherwise firefighters would not have to wear respiorators.
Finnally, regarding the US Marines. I did consider them at one point, however the thing that got me was, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian, I'm sure you just happened to miss that right under my name on my post.


Ahh, but we burn other natural products for other reasons that produce smoke. Should we stop all burning of products that produce smoke? Like hickory for smoking meat? That produces A LOT of smoke, and there is probably a carcinogenic element to smoking that turkey. I've heard it said that living in the greater Los Angeles area is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day due to the amount of air pollution there, should we immediately outlaw cars and gasoline? The amount of smoke produced in the ignition of one joint, or the significantly smaller amount of smoke produced by smoking through a bong, is exponentially less that the smoke and pollution caused by cars and trucks, so how do you reconcile that?

The US started to put warning labels on cigarettes in the 1960's. People have known the dangers of drinking too much since the days of the Pharaoh's. Sorry, you can't claim the ignorance factor on those. You're uncle chose to do what he did, and while it's unfortunate that he passed away so young, he at least had the freedom to live the way he did.

Actually, you don't have to be a citizen of the US to join one of the branches of service, all you need is a green card and a dream.

43% of Alaska came out in favor of FULL legalization (putting it on par with alcohol and tobacco) for a ballot initiative in November, which was defeated with 57%.

Alaska, a state that went 60%+ for George W. Bush.

If these ballot initiatives were run in any blue state, they would pass.

Seeing as how the government is attacking the current medical marijuana laws in Cali and elsewhere, it's only a matter of time before a state fully legalizes pot, goes up against the feds, and the US Supreme Court comes in.

I think all controlled substances should be legal. We don't need the government stepping to protect us from ourselves. Liberty or death!

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/bo040610.gif

there is a concern that if marijiuana is made legal, the "gateway" or "stepping-stone" theories will come into effect, meaning that those that try pot will go on to try harder, more dangerous drugs. a reasonable concern. but we can look at the examples of Amsterdam and Australia, where marijuana has been legalised. In both these places, initial marijuana use rose, then dropped a bit and steadied. In both these places, use of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth,) DROPPED DRAMATICALLY.

so if u look at the big picture, legalising marijuana is a good thing for society. It'll lessen hard/addictive drug use, it'll de-clog jails, and it'll make ppl more friendly and peaceful, less aggressive. all round good stuff. :)


*peace out*
quite. It has been shown in Amsterdam & The Netherlands that legalising (decriminalising) marijuana actually stops the 'gateway-drug' effect. This is simply because people no longer have to go visit dodgy dealers who try and get their 'clients' hooked on the hard drugs to make more money. Buying it from a coffee shop completely breaks the link between user and hard-drug pusher.

so if u look at the big picture, legalising marijuana is a good thing for society. It'll lessen hard/addictive drug use, it'll de-clog jails, and it'll make ppl more friendly and peaceful, less aggressive. all round good stuff.
Yes, but it would be very difficult for the government to tax it.

Yes, but it would be very difficult for the government to tax it.
depends how its sold.
sold in licenced cofee shops? easy - tax it like VAT or whatever the equivalent you have in the states is called.
Simply legalise it and allow anyone to sell it? Yeah that would be untaxable, but also not the position any government would take, imo. Legalising a drug that still has such negative stigma attatched to it in the public's eye would force any government to put puniative and excessive controls on its sale.

Legalising a drug that still has such negative stigma attatched to it in the public's eye would force any government to put puniative and excessive controls on its sale.

But that would still be preferable and less damaging to society than outright prohibition.

But that would still be preferable and less damaging to society than outright prohibition.
yeah. im not arguing for prohibition. just saying that the best way to legalise would be to sell it in coffee shops, as the anti-drug public would want to see control on its sale - much as there is for alcohol.

yeah. im not arguing for prohibition. just saying that the best way to legalise would be to sell it in coffee shops, as the anti-drug public would want to see control on its sale - much as there is for alcohol.

Gotcha. I think we're in agreement, but I think that in this country, it would be more acceptible if sold next to hard liquor with similar restrictions and taxes as say a bottle of scotch, ya?

Gotcha. I think we're in agreement, but I think that in this country, it would be more acceptible if sold next to hard liquor with similar restrictions and taxes as say a bottle of scotch, ya?
nah i like the idea of stoner coffee shops - partly cos one day id love to own & work in one. (pretty sad life-goal i know :rolleyes: )
but yes, similar restrictions to liquor.

Gotcha. I think we're in agreement, but I think that in this country, it would be more acceptible if sold next to hard liquor with similar restrictions and taxes as say a bottle of scotch, ya?
I think it'd be more fair to give it more lax of a status than tobacco currently has. It is less damaging than either alcohol or tobacco, and thus should basically be sold like cigarettes, in my opinion.

I think it'd be more fair to give it more lax of a status than tobacco currently has. It is less damaging than either alcohol or tobacco, and thus should basically be sold like cigarettes, in my opinion.

I'm going to disagree with you, but only slightly, I think that Pure Metal was onto something when he mentioned the negative image that pot has in the eyes of many of the (especially older) people of the US, and that legalization would be more likely to take place if restrictions were similar to hard liquor sales. I know it's stupid, and you and I both know that pot is less dangerous than aspirin, but if buying weed at the liquor store and letting it be taxed in a similar manner ended the stupid war on it, it's a concession that I would be willing to make.

...I think that Pure Metal was onto something...
woohoo! Go me! :D

legalize pot!


*smokes a bowl*

legalize pot!


*smokes a bowl*

2nd that!!

*loads another bowl*

2nd that!!

*loads another bowl*

puff puff snore...

We'll have it legalized eventually. Young people are overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. Unless the next generation turns out to be a bunch of moralizing prudes, it's just a matter of time until legalization.

We'll have it legalized eventually. Young people are overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. Unless the next generation turns out to be a bunch of moralizing prudes, it's just a matter of time until legalization.
Yeah, but all those damn hippies before us sold out, and us gen xers where way too small a generation to have any real effect. So, what I'm saying is: Don't sell out you punk kids........don't make me shake my fist......(just made me think I should put a sign on my lawn that says "Keep on the Grass!"....that won't get my house staked out.....)

Should Medical Marajuana be legal? Should Marjuana be legal? Or should we arrest the Marajuana Users?

[SIZE=7]marajuana should be illegal if all drugs like dope and coke etc, are illegal than so should marajuana, maybe not medical marajuana but defiently marajuana that get's dealed should be. And yes as soon as you see a guy dealing it or sniffing it take him into the police.undefined

[SIZE=7]marajuana should be illegal if all drugs like dope and coke etc, are illegal than so should marajuana, maybe not medical marajuana but defiently marajuana that get's dealed should be. And yes as soon as you see a guy dealing it or sniffing it take him into the police.undefined

Duuude, ha, yer like, high man...*puff puff* cuz you could only think something like that if yer, where, like, baked dude.

And yes as soon as you see a guy dealing it or sniffing it take him into the police.

Yeah, I personally perfer not to "sniff" my marijuana.

Marijuana should be legalized...for medical and not medical reasons. If you've ever known anyone on chemo...you'd agree with me. As I watched my friends mom go through chemo, getting thinner and thinner and knowing that possibly mj would help her...hell, she might have lived longer. She would have gotten the "marijuana munchies" and eaten more and gotten stronger than she was. That's just IMO, though.

I think it'd be more fair to give it more lax of a status than tobacco currently has. It is less damaging than either alcohol or tobacco, and thus should basically be sold like cigarettes, in my opinion.

I find myself wishing they'd outlaw tobacco instead...and I'm a cigarette-smoker...

I find myself wishing they'd outlaw tobacco instead...and I'm a cigarette-smoker...
But, you see, the government makes sh*tloads of cash from the tobacco industry. That's why it's legal and marijuana isn't.

Yep. Yup. No.

But, you see, the government makes sh*tloads of cash from the tobacco industry. That's why it's legal and marijuana isn't.

Yeah they make sh*tloads of cash, but some Canadian doctors are refusing to continue to treat smokers. Nice, eh? Smokers are being told they're undeserving of medical care because of their 'lifestyle choices'. Arrogant fucks. I may be a smoker, but my sin taxes go to pay those doctor's salaries - and anyway, they're just bio-mechanics, not Gods. Public servants. Flesh workers.

Sorry, I'm off-topic. I just felt a rant welling up inside and decided to let it out.

puff puff snore...

Same here dude...

Ahh, but we burn other natural products for other reasons that produce smoke. Should we stop all burning of products that produce smoke? Like hickory for smoking meat? That produces A LOT of smoke, and there is probably a carcinogenic element to smoking that turkey. I've heard it said that living in the greater Los Angeles area is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day due to the amount of air pollution there, should we immediately outlaw cars and gasoline? The amount of smoke produced in the ignition of one joint, or the significantly smaller amount of smoke produced by smoking through a bong, is exponentially less that the smoke and pollution caused by cars and trucks, so how do you reconcile that?

The US started to put warning labels on cigarettes in the 1960's. People have known the dangers of drinking too much since the days of the Pharaoh's. Sorry, you can't claim the ignorance factor on those. You're uncle chose to do what he did, and while it's unfortunate that he passed away so young, he at least had the freedom to live the way he did.

Actually, you don't have to be a citizen of the US to join one of the branches of service, all you need is a green card and a dream.


The difference with burning other things is they have filters in their exhaust systems. Cigarettes, Cigars, Pipes, and all that stuff does not (Unless they came out with a new model bong, in that point you may have a case.)
As for 1 joint, or one cigarette as opposed to running a car, you forget one thing. Numbers.
If you have 10 million people who smoke, and let's say they smoke a pack a day. Now in the avrage urban environment, not all of them would be driving, say perhaps half of them drive, and even then they'd drive what, 2 hours total of the day? As opposed to the what, 18 cigarettes in a pack (I'm guessing, but there has to be atleast that since that's what my mom "cut back" to.).
So, 10 million smoking 18 cigarettes produces smoke of 180 million cigarettes, all of which have no filters (the filter you smoke through only protects you, not the burning end.)
Compare that to 5 million people driving 2 hours a day in a car. And remember, cars have serious restrictions on their emissions.
As well, not even half the population drives cars, it's somewhere like a third of the population who drives a car even anywhere close to every day.

And again, you say the US. But you forget already twicethat I'm not in the US, neither was my uncle. We have our own tobacco and alcohol industries here who havn't been required to do that until much later. Just because one country does it doesn't mean EVERY country does it.

And again, I talked to US Marine recruiters in my attempt to join, I had to be a citizen. You're probably thinking of military exchange programs, which means you have to be a member of a military service already.
I still have the papers for joining the marines, and the special citizenship papers they gave me. I can fill both out and send them to the Marine Corps, and they will rush the citizen papers through.
But I don;t want to be an American, so I'm not doing it. Perhaps you should look deeper into that, since as I said, I've tried it.

but some Canadian doctors are refusing to continue to treat smokers. Nice, eh? Smokers are being told they're undeserving of medical care because of their 'lifestyle choices'.
So, you're saying I should pay for the treatment of people who chose to hurt themselves?
If you want to hurt yourselves smoking, YOU deal with the consequences, don't force others to do so. Those doctors have every right to do so, and I support them.

EDIT: For Roach Cliffs, this is from the USMC website's FAQ.
I am not a citizen of the United States, but I would still like to be in the Marines. Is this possible?
In most cases you must be a United States citizen or resident alien to join the Marines. Upon establishing permanent legal residence in the U.S., you should address specific questions regarding your enlistment to your local Marine Corps recruiter.

So, you're saying I should pay for the treatment of people who chose to hurt themselves?
If you want to hurt yourselves smoking, YOU deal with the consequences, don't force others to do so. Those doctors have every right to do so, and I support them.
Surely you see that ANY lifestyle has potential dangers. If you drive, you're at risk of a car accident. If you drink, you're at risk of liver disease. If you climb mountains, you're at risk of falling and breaking bones.

Doing that leads to greater government control of our personal lives.

So, you're saying I should pay for the treatment of people who chose to hurt themselves?

- No, you're saying that. I pay roughly $5.00 in extra federal tax for every pack of cigarettes I purchase, over and above the GST and sin taxes. What I'm saying is that frankly, I pay a Hell of a lot in taxes to our Government, which allows these materials to be legally sold. Who knows Dostanuot, I might pay more money into our healthcare system than YOU. Should you be denied healthcare because you're a smug, self-satisfied prick and your second-hand bad vibes are stressing me out unduly? Of course not. That would be unfair.

[QUOTE=Dostanuot Loj]If you want to hurt yourselves smoking, YOU deal with the consequences, don't force others to do so. Those doctors have every right to do so, and I support them.
[QUOTE]

Those doctors are civil servants, not arbiters of society's choices. In many cases, there are too few doctors in outlying areas, so when a doctor refuses to treat you due to your choice to smoke tobacco, there's no other doctor available to treat you. No civil servant has the right to unilaterally dictate terms to a member of the public. And doctors should disavow themselves of their godlike dispositions in any event. They are there to perform a function, not to moralize or chastise people.

Surely you see that ANY lifestyle has potential dangers. If you drive, you're at risk of a car accident. If you drink, you're at risk of liver disease. If you climb mountains, you're at risk of falling and breaking bones.

Doing that leads to greater government control of our personal lives.

If you crash a car, does it always mean YOU caused it?
I think drinking should be banned too, and would prefer alcoholics be in the same boat (Not those who contracted the liver diseases in other ways).
If you climb mountians, you're trained to do it. Your judgement is directly impacted on experiance with the stuff, and your sucess is directly dependant on the surface. You're just as likely to die of a random construction accident on the street then of mountian climbing. Smoking, drug use, and alcohol however, you are choosing to say "Kill me".

while we are out there, lets start banning youth from driving till they are 30, set a curfew of 8 pm for all people to ensure their safety, and set up 24 hour surveillance of all citizens to make sure there is no danger of them killing me.

Let's ban premarital sex, listening to non-classical music and walking into public buildings without security identification.

obviously over the top, yes? once you start taking away citizens rights to do what they want it will eventually lead to a complete civil rights landslide and an Orwellian nightmare.

hell, what am i talking about - its illegal to purchase drugs, and use them, but you are allowed to possess two leafs in Canberra...and then they wonder why kids go off and do drugs on their own without being sensible about it.

- No, you're saying that. I pay roughly $5.00 in extra federal tax for every pack of cigarettes I purchase, over and above the GST and sin taxes. What I'm saying is that frankly, I pay a Hell of a lot in taxes to our Government, which allows these materials to be legally sold. Who knows Dostanuot, I might pay more money into our healthcare system than YOU. Should you be denied healthcare because you're a smug, self-satisfied prick and your second-hand bad vibes are stressing me out unduly? Of course not. That would be unfair.

[QUOTE=Dostanuot Loj]If you want to hurt yourselves smoking, YOU deal with the consequences, don't force others to do so. Those doctors have every right to do so, and I support them.
[QUOTE]

Those doctors are civil servants, not arbiters of society's choices. In many cases, there are too few doctors in outlying areas, so when a doctor refuses to treat you due to your choice to smoke tobacco, there's no other doctor available to treat you. No civil servant has the right to unilaterally dictate terms to a member of the public. And doctors should disavow themselves of their godlike dispositions in any event. They are there to perform a function, not to moralize or chastise people.


Then perhaps medical school should be free and open to anyone who can pass it? Surely the fact that you pay to become something means you have the freedom to choose what you do?
And no, doctors are not civil servants, they are subsidised by the government. The doctors (Or buisness people) run the clinic, hospital, or practise, the government merely pays your bill when you come in. Non-Canadians still have to pay.
Just like my MSI card works here, it works in the US (I checked both here with MSI, and in theUS with a hospital when I went there).
Under your logic, the tobacco companies are civil servants because they alsoget government gives them money too.

And as for health care, the last time I saw a doctor was because of a mistake the government made. Nothing of my own choice.
And if you must know, for the sake of argument, I had to get a blood test for HepC because one of my parents got it from a blood transfusion provided by the Government. Nowhere in there did I have choice of it.
Appart from that I've had more injuries then I can count, and many of them very painful and life scaring. All of them however, were of my own choice, and each time I took care of my own problem. I'm not going to make you or anyone else pay for my own stupidity of playing with dangerous stuff, I can take care of myself.

I am begining to wonder if this Dostanuot Loj is serious about what he's saying or if he's just yanking our collective chains, folks.

If he truly believes every word of what he's posting, then perhaps we should juust ignore the ignorant and move on to another thread. Likewise, if it's chain-yanking he's after then we should definaitely be ignoring the blather coming from this guys keyboard. Either way, why is everyone who continues to argue with him doing so? If it's just for a good arguement, then have fun. But it isn't like anyone is ever going to change his mind about the nonsense he's spewing forth.

Look, so far he's lumping pot, cigarettes and alcohol together along with the rest of the hard drug cataghories. He's responses are generlly pretty whacky and/or sloppy (let me see if I can scroll back here and find his response to Chodolo). For example, "If you crash a car does it always mean YOU caused it?" By the very essence of saying "you crash a car" then you are obviously the crasher of said car. I know what he meant, but this sloopiness is indicative of his mentality. Here's another from the same response "If you climb mountains then you are trained to do it". No, plenty of recreational climbers out there are not trained professional rock/mountain climbers. Again, sloppy. And again, his words --

Surely the fact that you pay to become something means you have the freedom to choose what you do?

Therefore if someone pays to become a pothead, then they should have the fredom to chose to be a pot head. Gosh! That's what we've been saying all along!

Lastly, anyone who makes a serious statement about shooting anyone who uses a substance to help relaxe/have fun should generally be ignored, flamed, or ruthlessly made fun of.

So don't argue with this poor misguided fellow. Just be grateful he wasn't able to join the US Marines. They're too good a bunch of guys and gals (the vast majority) to have someone like this causing trouble in their ranks.

Let's all just move along, people. Plenty of other threads to rant and have fun in.

I am begining to wonder if this Dostanuot Loj is serious about what he's saying or if he's just yanking our collective chains, folks.

If he truly believes every word of what he's posting, then perhaps we should juust ignore the ignorant and move on to another thread. Likewise, if it's chain-yanking he's after then we should definaitely be ignoring the blather coming from this guys keyboard. Either way, why is everyone who continues to argue with him doing so? If it's just for a good arguement, then have fun. But it isn't like anyone is ever going to change his mind about the nonsense he's spewing forth.

Look, so far he's lumping pot, cigarettes and alcohol together along with the rest of the hard drug cataghories. He's responses are generlly pretty whacky and/or sloppy (let me see if I can scroll back here and find his response to Chodolo). For example, "If you crash a car does it always mean YOU caused it?" By the very essence of saying "you crash a car" then you are obviously the crasher of said car. I know what he meant, but this sloopiness is indicative of his mentality. Here's another from the same response "If you climb mountains then you are trained to do it". No, plenty of recreational climbers out there are not trained professional rock/mountain climbers. Again, sloppy. And again, his words --



Therefore if someone pays to become a pothead, then they should have the fredom to chose to be a pot head. Gosh! That's what we've been saying all along!

Lastly, anyone who makes a serious statement about shooting anyone who uses a substance to help relaxe/have fun should generally be ignored, flamed, or ruthlessly made fun of.

So don't argue with this poor misguided fellow. Just be grateful he wasn't able to join the US Marines. They're too good a bunch of guys and gals (the vast majority) to have someone like this causing trouble in their ranks.

Let's all just move along, people. Plenty of other threads to rant and have fun in.


Thank you for pointing out that you should ignore everyone who does not think what you do.
Again, thank you, Bigot.

All Drugs should be legal.

bump... or is this thread exhausted?

If you crash a car, does it always mean YOU caused it?
I think drinking should be banned too, and would prefer alcoholics be in the same boat (Not those who contracted the liver diseases in other ways).
If you climb mountians, you're trained to do it. Your judgement is directly impacted on experiance with the stuff, and your sucess is directly dependant on the surface. You're just as likely to die of a random construction accident on the street then of mountian climbing. Smoking, drug use, and alcohol however, you are choosing to say "Kill me".

So you think my mom's doctors should refuse to treat her because she continues to eat fucking candy bars which she knows they are bad for her. Hey, maybe they should even cancel her prescription for insulin or maybe even the government should not let her have it since her diabetes and insulin dependence was caused by poor dietery habits. Fuck you.

Hey this is a great Forum! But have you ever tried it on drugs? Maaaan!!!

Hey Dostanaut! Go and kill some babies in Iraq and stop boring me!

So you think my mom's doctors should refuse to treat her because she continues to eat fucking candy bars which she knows they are bad for her. Hey, maybe they should even cancel her prescription for insulin or maybe even the government should not let her have it since her diabetes and insulin dependence was caused by poor dietery habits. Fuck you.


Does your mothers diabetes hurt those around her?
Did her eating of candy hurt others around her?

Does your mothers diabetes hurt those around her?
Did her eating of candy hurt others around her?

By your definition it does.

A resident alien is someone with a green card.

I am begining to wonder if this Dostanuot Loj is serious about what he's saying or if he's just yanking our collective chains, folks.

Either that, or he's 19. And teenagers know everything...

By your definition it does.

Quote me where I said that "definition" and we'll see.
Or better yet, just give me the comment number, I'll look it up.

A resident alien is someone with a green card.
And has permenant residency within a country. Which means that I must move to America for life. Other terms for it happen to be Landed Immigrant, and Premenant Resisdent. Which is just like being a citizen, minus the right to vote and a few other things. As well as requiering a special ID to travel outside of the US (Not when going to Canada though, it's too easy to travel between Canada and the US).

Quote me where I said that "definition" and we'll see.
Or better yet, just give me the comment number, I'll look it up.


And has permenant residency within a country. Which means that I must move to America for life. blah blah blah

This is simple: you are either for individual freedom or against it. There's really not much of a middle ground. You either want a regimented, homogenous and restricted society, or you want a fast, heterogenous, and unrestricted society.

If you're in favor of martial law, just say so and be done with it. But in a free society, somebody somewhere is going to do something you don't like. You either tolerate what other people do that you don't approve of, and hope that others are tolerant of the things you do that they don't like.

I, personally, don't think anyone should be allowed to drive a vehicle that weighs more than 4000 pounds without a commercial license. This is going to be very unpopular, seeing as how many Americans (and Canadians) like to drive large cars and trucks. I think it's a safety and environmental issue. However, I don't try to ban those vehicles or have the people who drive them shot. I try and talk rationally about why those vehicles are not good.

If you would like to educate others on the danger of smoking, that's great, and I applaud you. However, I want to be free. I want to live free. And if I choose to smoke a big joint, a fat sweet el presidente or a Marlboro and wash it down with a 18 year old glass of scotch, I should be able to do so, since none of that harms you, or anyone else in the slightest.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees in the type of society you propose.

Does your mothers diabetes hurt those around her?
Did her eating of candy hurt others around her?

Considering that high blood sugar levels can somewhat affect a person's judgement and severly affect their eyesight (causing thing to appear hazy or causing double vision) and that she, like other diabetics, have idiotically DRIVEN while in this condition, then yes, it could potentially hurt others. Like driving drunk. Or driving on cold-remedies.

Now, least you continue thinking that refined sugar is not drug-like:

http://www.free-weight-loss-resources.com/DailyArticles8.htm

Sugar is well known as the underlying addiction to all addictions, and can be seen hiding under alcoholism, caffeine, nicotine & drug addictions of all varieties from recreational to over-the-counter, as well as prescription medications. It is usually a part of any compulsive behavior & is well connected to anxiety, panic disorder, phobia, depression & a host of other emotional imbalances.

On the physical side it plays havoc with many chronic disease states, the most popular being hypoglycemia, hyperinsulinemia or pre-diabetes, diabetes, heart & circulatory disorders, certain cancers, gastro-intestinal disturbances including irritable bowel syndrome, GURD, as well as PMS & menopause. We can also see it rearing it's head in the area of cognitive functioning, including memory, focus, concentration, mental flexibility & levels of creativity.

Y'know, for someone who claims not to be religious (other threads, think it was you) your views on which potentially harmful substances should be legislated against is awfully in line with fundie "morals." Ever think about converting?

This is simple: you are either for individual freedom or against it. There's really not much of a middle ground. You either want a regimented, homogenous and restricted society, or you want a fast, heterogenous, and unrestricted society.

If you're in favor of martial law, just say so and be done with it. But in a free society, somebody somewhere is going to do something you don't like. You either tolerate what other people do that you don't approve of, and hope that others are tolerant of the things you do that they don't like.

I, personally, don't think anyone should be allowed to drive a vehicle that weighs more than 4000 pounds without a commercial license. This is going to be very unpopular, seeing as how many Americans (and Canadians) like to drive large cars and trucks. I think it's a safety and environmental issue. However, I don't try to ban those vehicles or have the people who drive them shot. I try and talk rationally about why those vehicles are not good.

If you would like to educate others on the danger of smoking, that's great, and I applaud you. However, I want to be free. I want to live free. And if I choose to smoke a big joint, a fat sweet el presidente or a Marlboro and wash it down with a 18 year old glass of scotch, I should be able to do so, since none of that harms you, or anyone else in the slightest.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees in the type of society you propose.
well said, sir.

more 18 year old scotch?

Medicinal Marijuana, sure. But while it would certainly make for a quieter life, I'm not sure legalising marijuana would be a good idea.

Wait, hear me out! I'm a dirty stoner, first to admit it. But part of the enjoyment of smokin' is that it is certainly not government regulated. Theres the additional thrill of civic disobedience to mix into the natural high. Do you really want someone to tax marijuana? Some corporation to control it's distribution and end up with joints containing more tar than THC?

As to arresting users, no, I don't think thats a good idea. On the spot fines would maintain the excitment, be a form of taxation and save money in the courts.

well said, sir.

more 18 year old scotch?

*pour*

Thanks! Don't mind if I do! Will it be the Glenmorangie or the Oban?

Medicinal Marijuana, sure. But while it would certainly make for a quieter life, I'm not sure legalising marijuana would be a good idea.

Wait, hear me out! I'm a dirty stoner, first to admit it. But part of the enjoyment of smokin' is that it is certainly not government regulated. Theres the additional thrill of civic disobedience to mix into the natural high. Do you really want someone to tax marijuana? Some corporation to control it's distribution and end up with joints containing more tar than THC?

As to arresting users, no, I don't think thats a good idea. On the spot fines would maintain the excitment, be a form of taxation and save money in the courts.

But wouldn't that just be a defacto tax? If there's no threat of arrest for either possesion or cultivation, and a ticket is given instead, isn't the government still collecting revenue on said plant?

*pour*

Thanks! Don't mind if I do! Will it be the Glenmorangie or the Oban?
sorry... i was mistaken.... its the horrible £6.99 stuff from Lidl. Probably been aged for more like 6 weeks than 18 years!

WellBut wouldn't that just be a defacto tax? If there's no threat of arrest for either possesion or cultivation, and a ticket is given instead, isn't the government still collecting revenue on said plant?

Well, yes and no. I mean, if you're quick, smart and have trustworthy friends, you wont get 'taxed'. Plus it still limits intervention to a decent level, as well as allowing police services to monitor sales and distribution networks. Anyone being caught with an exceptionally large quantity is gonna loose a LOT of money as well as his draw. The police monitoring of sales impacts on any related crime that pops up, although to my knowledge not much does.